Correlation Between Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Health Insurance Provider Types in Patients with Hip Osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are frequently utilized to assess patient perceptions of health and function. Numerous factors influence self-reported physical and mental health outcome scores. The purpose of this study was to examine if an association exists between insurance payer type and baseline PROM scores in patients diagnosed with hip osteoarthritis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the baseline PROM scores of 5,974 patients diagnosed with hip osteoarthritis according to the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code within our institutional database from 2015 to 2020. We examined Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-form (HOOS-PS), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Short Form 10a (PF10a), PROMIS Global-Mental, and PROMIS Global-Physical scores. Descriptive analyses, analysis of variance (ANOVA), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and post hoc analyses were utilized to assess variations in PROM scores across insurance type. RESULTS: The mean age (and standard deviation) of the study population was 63.5 ± 12.2 years, and 55.7% of patients were female. The Medicaid cohort had a comparatively higher percentage of Black, Hispanic, and non-English-speaking patients and a lower median household income. The Charlson Comorbidity Index was highest in the Medicare and Medicaid insurance cohorts. Patients utilizing commercial insurance consistently demonstrated the highest baseline PROMs, and patients utilizing Medicaid consistently demonstrated the lowest baseline PROMs. Subsequent analyses found significantly poorer mean scores for the Medicaid cohort for all 4 PROMs when compared with the commercial insurance and Medicare cohorts. These score differences exceeded the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). For the PROMIS Global-Mental subscore, a significantly lower mean score was observed for the Workers' Compensation and motor vehicle insurance cohort when compared with the commercial insurance and Medicare cohort. This difference also exceeded the MCID. CONCLUSIONS: PROM scores in patients with hip osteoarthritis varied among those with different insurance types. Variations in certain demographic and health indices are potential drivers of these observed baseline PROM differences. For patients with hip osteoarthritis, the use of PROMs for research, clinical, or quality-linked payment metrics should acknowledge baseline variation between patients with different insurance types. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Review of Insurance Coverage for Abdominal Contouring Procedures in the Postbariatric Population.

BACKGROUND: Following bariatric surgery, patients develop problems related to lax abdominal skin that may be addressed by contouring procedures. Third-party insurers have subjective requirements for coverage of these procedures that can limit patient access. The authors sought to determine how well third-party payers cover abdominal contouring procedures in this population. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for coverage of panniculectomy, lower back excision, and circumferential lipectomy. Abdominoplasty was evaluated as an alternative to panniculectomy. Insurance companies were selected based on their market share and state enrolment. A list of medical necessity criteria was abstracted from the policies that offered coverage. RESULTS: Of the 55 companies evaluated, 98 percent had a policy that covered panniculectomy versus 36 percent who would cover lower back excision (p < 0.0001), and one-third provided coverage for circumferential lipectomy. Of the insurers who covered panniculectomy, only 30 percent would also cover abdominoplasty. Documentation of secondary skin conditions was the most prevalent criterion in panniculectomy policies (100 percent), whereas impaired function and secondary skin conditions were most common for coverage of lower back excision (73 percent and 73 percent, respectively). Frequency of criteria for panniculectomy versus lower back excision differed most notably for (1) secondary skin conditions (100 percent versus 73 percent; p = 0.0030), (2) weight loss (45 percent versus 7 percent; p = 0.0106), and (3) duration of weight stability (82 percent versus 53 percent; p = 0.0415). CONCLUSIONS: For the postbariatric population, panniculectomy was covered more often and had more standardized criteria than lower back excision or circumferential lipectomy. However, all have vast intracompany and interpolicy variations in coverage criteria that may reduce access to procedures, even among patients with established indications.

Who Pays To Care for the Seriously Ill? Maybe It's Insurance Companies.

Palliative care would fill a need and could save health care dollars in the process. But providers often need to patch together CPT codes to get paid for it.

Current and projected patient and insurer costs for the care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the United States through 2040.

AIMS: The objective of this study was to quantify the current and to project future patient and insurer costs for the care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the US. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An analysis of administrative claims data among patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer from 2007-2015 was conducted. Future costs were projected through 2040 based on these data using autoregressive models. RESULTS: Analysis of claims data found the average total cost of care during first- and second-line therapy was $1,161.70 and $561.80 for patients, and $45,175.70 and $26,201.40 for insurers, respectively. By 2040, the average total patient out-of-pocket costs are projected to reach $3,047.67 for first-line and $2,211.33 for second-line therapy, and insurance will pay an average of $131,262.39 for first-line and $75,062.23 for second-line therapy. LIMITATIONS: Claims data are not collected for research purposes; therefore, there may be errors in entry and coding. Additionally, claims data do not contain important clinical factors, such as stage of disease at diagnosis, tumor histology, or data on disease progression, which may have important implications on the cost of care. CONCLUSIONS: The trajectory of the cost of lung cancer care is growing. This study estimates that the cost of care may double by 2040, with the greatest proportion of increase in patient out-of-pocket costs. Despite the average cost projections, these results suggest that a small sub-set of patients with very high costs could be at even greater risk in the future.

Decision Making on Medical Innovations in a Changing Health Care Environment: Insights from Accountable Care Organizations and Payers on Personalized Medicine and Other Technologies.

BACKGROUND: New payment and care organization approaches, such as those of accountable care organizations (ACOs), are reshaping accountability and shifting risk, as well as decision making, from payers to providers, within the Triple Aim context of health reform. The Triple Aim calls for improving experience of care, improving health of populations, and reducing health care costs. OBJECTIVES: To understand how the transition to the ACO model impacts decision making on adoption and use of innovative technologies in the era of accelerating scientific advancement of personalized medicine and other innovations. METHODS: We interviewed representatives from 10 private payers and 6 provider institutions involved in implementing the ACO model (i.e., ACOs) to understand changes, challenges, and facilitators of decision making on medical innovations, including personalized medicine. We used the framework approach of qualitative research for study design and thematic analysis. RESULTS: We found that representatives from the participating payer companies and ACOs perceive similar challenges to ACOs' decision making in terms of achieving a balance between the components of the Triple Aim-improving care experience, improving population health, and reducing costs. The challenges include the prevalence of cost over care quality considerations in ACOs' decisions and ACOs' insufficient analytical and technology assessment capacity to evaluate complex innovations such as personalized medicine. Decision-making facilitators included increased competition across ACOs and patients' interest in personalized medicine. CONCLUSIONS: As new payment models evolve, payers, ACOs, and other stakeholders should address challenges and leverage opportunities to arm ACOs with robust, consistent, rigorous, and transparent approaches to decision making on medical innovations.

Estimated Budget Impact of Adopting the Affordable Care Act's Required Smoking Cessation Coverage on United States Healthcare Payers.

INTRODUCTION: Despite abundant information on the negative impacts of smoking, more than 40 million adult Americans continue to smoke. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires tobacco cessation as a preventive service with no patient cost share for all FDA-approved cessation medications. Health plans have a vital role in supporting smoking cessation by managing medication access, but uncertainty remains on the gaps between smoking cessation requirements and what is actually occurring in practice. This study presents current cessation patterns, real-world drug costs and plan benefit design data, and estimates the 1- to 5-year pharmacy budget impact of providing ACA-required coverage for smoking cessation products to understand the fiscal impact to a US healthcare plan. METHODS: A closed cohort budget impact model was developed in Microsoft Excel® to estimate current and projected costs for US payers (commercial, Medicare, Medicaid) covering smoking cessation medicines, with assumptions for coverage and smoking cessation product utilization based on current, real-world national and state-level trends for hypothetical commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid plans with 1 million covered lives. A Markov methodology with five health states captures quit attempt and relapse patterns. Results include the number of smokers attempting to quit, number of successful quitters, annual costs, and cost per-member per-month (PMPM). RESULTS: The projected PMPM cost of providing coverage for smoking cessation medications is $0.10 for commercial, $0.06 for Medicare, and $0.07 for Medicaid plans, reflecting a low incremental PMPM impact of covering two attempts ranging from $0.01 for Medicaid to $0.02 for commercial and Medicare payers. CONCLUSION: The projected PMPM impact of covering two quit attempts with access to all seven cessation medications at no patient cost share remains low. Results of this study reinforce that the impact of adopting the ACA requirements for smoking cessation coverage will have a limited near-term impact on health plan's budgets. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.

Budget impact analysis of bioabsorbable drug-eluting sinus implants following endoscopic sinus surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Propel is a bioabsorbable drug-eluting sinus implant inserted following an endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The objective of this study was to estimate the budget impact of incorporating Propel post-ESS for CRS patients from a self-insured employer or third-party payer perspective. METHODS: An Excel-based budget impact model was developed. Estimates of the prevalence of CRS, rates of ESS, and effectiveness outcomes, along with direct and indirect costs from CRS were obtained from published literature. A total population of 1.5 million members was hypothesized for the analysis. All cost data were adjusted to October 2015 US dollars using the Medical Care Component of the Consumer Price Index. The cost and clinical/economic characteristics of Propel were compared to other treatments commonly used to minimize post-operative complications. The primary outcome was the incremental budget impact reported using per-member-per-month (PMPM) costs. Scenario-based, probabilistic, and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to gauge the robustness of the results and identify the parameters with the most influence on the results. RESULTS: For a US self-insured employer or a commercial health plan of 1.5 million members, the incremental PMPM impact of incorporating Propel was estimated to range from -$0.003 to $0.036, respectively, for all members in the health plan. Sensitivity analyses identified the cost of Propel, probability of polyposis recurrence requiring medical intervention, probability of adhesion formation requiring surgical intervention, and the treatment costs for polyposis as the primary parameters influencing the results. CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated the use of Propel following ESS procedures has a negligible impact on the budget of a US self-insured employer or payer. The upfront cost of Propel was offset by savings associated with reduced probability for polyp recurrence, adhesion formation, and their subsequent treatment.

Value Tools Not in The Insurer Toolkit-Yet.

Current versions by ASCO, and others may not be right for insurers, but they are eyeing new ways to crunch the numbers for cost and outcomes.

Stated and Revealed Preferences for Funding New High-Cost Cancer Drugs: A Critical Review of the Evidence from Patients, the Public and Payers.

BACKGROUND: The growing focus on patient-centred care has encouraged the inclusion of patient and public input into payer drug reimbursement decisions. Yet, little is known about patient/public priorities for funding high-cost medicines, and how they compare to payer priorities applied in public funding decisions for new cancer drugs. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to identify and compare the funding preferences of cancer patients and the general public against the criteria used by payers making cancer drug funding decisions. METHODS: A thorough review of the empirical, peer-reviewed English literature was conducted. Information sources were PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Business Source Complete, and EconLit. Eligible studies (1) assessed the cancer drug funding preferences of patients, the general public or payers, (2) had pre-defined measures of funding preference, and (3) had outcomes with attributes or measures of 'value'. The quality of included studies was evaluated using a health technology assessment-based assessment tool, followed by extraction of general study characteristics and funding preferences, which were categorized using an established WHO-based framework. RESULTS: Twenty-five preference studies were retrieved (11 quantitative, seven qualitative, seven mixed-methods). Most studies were published from 2005 onward, with the oldest dating back to 1997. Two studies evaluated both patient and public perspectives, giving 27 total funding perspectives (41 % payer, 33 % public, 26 % patients). Of 41 identified funding criteria, payers consider the most (35), the general public considers fewer (23), and patients consider the fewest (12). We identify four unique patient criteria: financial protection, access to medical information, autonomy in treatment decision making, and the 'value of hope'. Sixteen countries/jurisdictions were represented. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that (1) payers prioritize efficiency (health gains per dollar), while citizens (patients and the general public) prioritize equity (equal access to cancer medicines independent of cost or effectiveness), (2) citizens prioritize few criteria relevant to payers, and (3) citizens prioritize several criteria not considered by payers. This can explain why payer and citizen priorities clash when new cancer medicines are denied public funding.

Meeting the Tobacco Cessation Coverage Requirement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: State Smoking Cessation Quitlines and Cost Sharing.

OBJECTIVES: We explored whether various key stakeholders considered cost sharing with state telephone-based tobacco cessation quitlines, because including tobacco cessation services as part of the required essential health benefits is a new requirement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). METHODS: We analyzed qualitative data collected from interviews conducted in April and May of 2014 with representatives of state health departments, quitline service providers, health plans, and insurance brokers in 4 US states. RESULTS: State health departments varied in the strategies they considered the role their state quitline would play in meeting the ACA requirements. Health plans and insurance brokers referred to state quitlines because they were perceived as effective and free, but in 3 of the 4 states, the private stakeholder groups did not consider cost sharing. CONCLUSIONS: If state health departments are going to initiate cost-sharing agreements with private insurance providers, then they will need to engage a broad array of stakeholders and will need to overcome the perception that state quitline services are free.

Impacto de la utilización de la red propia de una aseguradora privada sobre los costos de atención ambulatoria / The cost impact of a private insurer's own network upon outpatient care

Objetivo. Medir el impacto de la red propia (proveedores verticalmente integrados) de una aseguradora privada sobre los costos médicos ambulatorios de sus asegurados, a través de un análisis econométrico. Se busca verificar si un mayor uso de la red propia reduce los costos en los que la aseguradora incurre, de acuerdo con lo que sugiere la literatura especializada. Material y métodos. Estudio basado en una regresión lineal múltiple sobre los datos de una aseguradora privada. La variable dependiente es el costo per cápita de los servicios ambulatorios. Las variables explicativas son la adherencia a la red propia y una serie de variables para especificar mejor el modelo. Resultados. En relación con la cobertura de los costos de atención ambulatoria, si los demás factores se mantienen constantes, se observa que los asegurados con alta adherencia a la red propia presentan menores costos de atención que aquéllos con baja adherencia. Conclusión. El proceso decisorio sobre qué servicios y en qué grado debe ser aplicado a cada persona, por condiciones particulares de la oferta como el hecho de reunir recurso humano en sedes propias bajo reglas formales, presenta un impacto en los costos de atención en salud. Condiciones particulares de la oferta producen variaciones en la forma como son empleados los recursos.

Objective. Econometric analysis that seeks to measure the cost impact of a private insurer's own network upon outpatient care for its policyholders, own network refers to vertical integrated providers. The purpose is to assess whether greater use of its own network reduces the costs that the insurer incurred, according to what specialized literature suggests. Materials and methods. Study based on a multiple linear regression on data from a private insurer. The dependent variable is per capita cost of outpatient services. The explanatory variables are adherence to the own network and a number of variables to specify better the model. Results. With all other factors constant, in relation to covering the costs of outpatient care, it is noted that policyholders with high adhesion to their own network are less expensive than whose with low adhesion. Conclusions. The decision-making process about what services and what grade should be applied to each person by special conditions of the offer as the aggregation of human resources in own offices under formal rules has an impact on health care costs. Particular supply conditions cause variations in how resources are used.

[Acute pain therapy in German hospitals as competitive factor. Do competition, ownership and case severity influence the practice of acute pain therapy?]. / Akutschmerztherapie in deutschen Krankenhäusern als Wettbewerbsfaktor. Wird die Praxis der Akutschmerztherapie von Wettbewerb, Trägerschaft und Fallschwere beeinflusst?

BACKGROUND: Due to the implementation of the diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system, the competitive pressure on German hospitals increased. In this context it has been shown that acute pain management offers economic benefits for hospitals. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of the competitive situation, the ownership and the economic resources required on structures and processes for acute pain management. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A standardized questionnaire on structures and processes of acute pain management was mailed to the 885 directors of German departments of anesthesiology listed as members of the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin). RESULTS: For most hospitals a strong regional competition existed; however, this parameter affected neither the implementation of structures nor the recommended treatment processes for pain therapy. In contrast, a clear preference for hospitals in private ownership to use the benchmarking tool QUIPS (quality improvement in postoperative pain therapy) was found. These hospitals also presented information on coping with the management of pain in the corporate clinic mission statement more often and published information about the quality of acute pain management in the quality reports more frequently. No differences were found between hospitals with different forms of ownership in the implementation of acute pain services, quality circles, expert standard pain management and the implementation of recommended processes. Hospitals with a higher case mix index (CMI) had a certified acute pain management more often. The corporate mission statement of these hospitals also contained information on how to cope with pain, presentation of the quality of pain management in the quality report, implementation of quality circles and the implementation of the expert standard pain management more frequently. There were no differences in the frequency of using the benchmarking tool QUIPS or the implementation of recommended treatment processes with respect to the CMI. CONCLUSION: In this survey no effect of the competitive situation of hospitals on acute pain management could be demonstrated. Private ownership and a higher CMI were more often associated with structures of acute pain management which were publicly accessible in terms of hospital marketing.

Most exchange plans charge lower tobacco surcharges than allowed, but many tobacco users lack affordable coverage.

Beginning in 2014, federal guidelines for health plans sold to people in the individual market allow insurers to charge tobacco users up to 50 percent more for premiums, compared to nonusers. We examined variations in tobacco surcharges for plans offered through the state and federal health insurance exchanges, or Marketplaces. The plan with the median surcharge had only 10 percent higher premiums for tobacco users compared to nonusers, and nine in ten plans charged a lower surcharge than allowed. Even with such lower-than-allowed surcharges, tobacco users lacked affordable coverage-defined as access to at least one plan with premiums of less than 8 percent of income after subsidies-in more states than did nonusers. Higher premiums could encourage tobacco users to opt out of coverage. Our results also suggest that the variation in tobacco surcharges may result in the sorting of tobacco users and nonusers into different plans.

Pilot testing of a model for insurer-driven, large-scale multicenter simulation training for operating room teams.

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of implementing a standardized teamwork training program with full operating room teams in multiple institutions, driven by malpractice insurer support and incentives. BACKGROUND: Failures in intraoperative teamwork are among the leading causes of preventable patient injury and death in surgical patients. Teamwork training, particularly using simulation, can be an effective intervention but is difficult to scale. METHODS: A malpractice insurer convened a collaborative with 4 Harvard-affiliated simulation programs to develop a standardized operating room teamwork training curriculum, including principles of communication, assertiveness, and use of the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist. Participant teams were compensated for lost operative time via malpractice premium discounts, continuing education credits, and compensation for lost wages. The course was delivered through a simulation program involving the management of intraoperative emergency scenarios. Participants were surveyed for their perceptions of the program and of its impact on clinical practice. RESULTS: A total of 221 active operating room staff members participated in the program. Each team contained at least 1 attending surgeon, 1 attending anesthesiologist, and 1 operating room nurse (mean size per team: 7 ± 2 participants). No study dates were cancelled because of lack of attendance. The survey response rate was 99% (218/221). Overall, the vast majority of participants found the scenarios realistic [94% (95% confidence interval: 90.9%, 97.2%)], appropriately challenging [95.4% (92.6%, 98.2%)], relevant to their practice [96.3% (93.8%, 98.8%)], and found the training would help them provide safer patient care [92.6% (89.1%, 96.1%)]. Surgeons reported their greatest personal deficit as communication skills. Operating room nurses and anesthesiologists reported a greater need than surgeons to work on personal assertiveness. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized multicenter team training program involving full operative teams is feasible with high-fidelity simulation and modest compensation for lost time. The vast majority of the multidisciplinary participants believed the course to have had a meaningful impact on their approach to clinical practice.

A new prevention paradox: the trade-off between reducing incentives for risk selection and increasing the incentives for prevention for health insurers.

The Dutch risk equalization scheme has been improved over the years by including health related risk adjusters. The purpose of the Dutch risk equalization scheme is to prevent risk selection and to correct for predictable losses and gains for insurers. The objective of this paper is to explore the financial incentives for risk selection under the Dutch risk equalization scheme. We used a simulation model to estimate lifetime health care costs and risk equalization contributions for three cohorts (a smoking; an obese; and a healthy living cohort). Financial differences for the three cohorts were assessed by subtracting health care costs from risk equalization contributions. Even under an elaborate risk equalization system, the healthy living cohort was still most financially attractive for insurers. Smokers were somewhat less attractive, while the obese cohort was least attractive. Lifetime differences with healthy living individuals (revenues minus costs) were modest: €4840 for obese individuals and €1101 for smokers. Under a simple form of risk equalization these differences were higher, €8542 and €4620 respectively. Improvement of the risk equalization scheme reduced the gap between costs and revenues. Incentives for undesirable risk selection were reduced, but simultaneously incentives for health promotion were weakened. This highlights a new prevention paradox: improving the level playing field for health insurers will inevitably limit their incentives for promoting the health of their clients.