Affordability and adherence gains for Medicare Part D low-income subsidy recipients when low-income subsidy benefits expanded in 2024.

BACKGROUND: The lowest-income beneficiaries enrolled in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program receive "full subsidies" that waive the premium and deductible and impose minimal copayments. Those with slightly higher incomes and assets may be eligible for "partial subsidies." Prior to 2024, individuals receiving partial subsidies faced reduced Part D premiums and deductibles and paid 15% coinsurance. Under provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, recipients of partial subsidies were upgraded to full subsidies beginning in 2024. The objective of this pilot study was to assess whether the new policy is likely to reduce cost-related nonadherence to prescribed medications- a common problem faced by older adults even among those receiving subsidies. OBJECTIVE: To compare cost-related nonadherence among partial- vs full-subsidy recipients with similar characteristics. METHODS: We used 2019 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data for the study. The Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey is uniquely suited for this work because it contains administrative data on low-income subsidy enrollment plus extensive survey-based information on financial resources necessary to establish program eligibility and rates of cost-related nonadherence. Explanatory variables included sociodemographic characteristics, economic resources, work status, and health variables. RESULTS: We found that the partial-subsidy group reported significantly more cost-related nonadherence (39% vs 22%; P = 0.01) arising both from a lower propensity to fill some prescriptions (23% vs 12%; P = 0.03) and to more delays in filling others (29% vs 8%; P = 0.03). The differences were more pronounced for women and racial and ethnic minority groups in contrast to men and majority populations, respectively. Because the study samples were small, we could not conduct a detailed regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of cost-related nonadherence effects associated with partial-subsidy cost sharing suggests that the Inflation Reduction Act policy to expand low-income subsidies may boost medication adherence, most notably among women and racial and ethnic minority groups.

Deductible double jeopardy: patients may pay more out of pocket when pregnancy crosses 2 years.

OBJECTIVES: This study explores the concern that annual high-deductible commercial insurance plan design may yield higher out-of-pocket costs when an episode of maternity care spans 2 years, exposing patients to their cost-sharing limits twice during their episode of care. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of Health Care Cost Institute commercial claims. METHODS: The study sample comprises 1,379,300 deliveries among high-deductible health plan enrollees in years 2012 through 2021. Patients' mean cost sharing is calculated across all service types for 3 time periods: (1) delivery hospitalization, (2) maternity episode from 40 weeks prior to delivery hospitalization through 12 weeks after discharge, and (3) extended period spanning 3 years from January of the year before delivery through December of the year after delivery. RESULTS: For each of the 3 episode measurements, mean out-of-pocket spending is highest among those who deliver in January and declines in each subsequent month until August and September (the delivery months with most pregnancy and postpartum periods within the same year), then flattens for the remainder of the year. Mean cost sharing for the maternity episode was $6308 in January and $4998 in December, a difference of $1310. Patients delivering in January also had mean out-of-pocket costs $1491 greater for delivery hospitalization and $1005 greater over the 3-year period than patients delivering in December. CONCLUSIONS: Higher out-of-pocket spending is observed when patients face their cost-sharing limits twice within an episode of maternity care, and this difference persists even when evaluating 3 calendar years of patients' out-of-pocket spending.

Evaluating a novel online behavioural intervention to encourage cost-conscious strategies among US adults with chronic conditions who are enrolled in a high-deductible health plan: a proof-of-concept pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with chronic conditions enrolled in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) face cost-related access barriers and high out-of-pocket spending. Our objectives were to develop a novel behavioural intervention to help HDHP enrollees with chronic conditions use cost-conscious strategies and evaluate the intervention's preliminary effectiveness, acceptability and feasibility. DESIGN: Prospective. SETTING: Online (USA). PARTICIPANTS: 36 US adults enrolled in an HDHP through their employer or an exchange with diabetes, hypertension, asthma, coronary artery disease and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 31/36 participants completed the study. INTERVENTION: We developed a 5-week intervention consisting of a website with educational modules on discussing costs with clinicians, saving for future healthcare costs, comparing healthcare prices and quality, preparing for appointments, following up after appointments and planning for future healthcare needs; and emails encouraging participants to access each module. OUTCOMES: We conducted a single-arm proof-of-concept pilot study of the intervention. Baseline and postintervention surveys measured primary outcomes of health insurance literacy and confidence in using cost-conscious strategies. 10 participants completed postintervention interviews. RESULTS: 31 (86%) participants completed a baseline and postintervention survey. Mean health insurance literacy scores (20-80 scale) improved from 56.5 to 67.1 (p<0.001). Mean confidence scores (0-10 scale) improved for talking to a healthcare provider about cost (6.1-7.6, p=0.0094), saving for healthcare (5.8-6.6, p=0.068), comparing prices (5.4-6.9, p=0.005) and comparing quality (6.1 to 7.6, p=0.0034). Participants found the website easy to use and helpful for learning about cost-conscious strategies on postintervention interviews. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel behavioural intervention was acceptable to HDHP enrollees with chronic conditions, feasible to deliver and associated with increased health insurance literacy and confidence in using cost-conscious strategies. This intervention should be tested in a definitive randomised controlled trial that is fully powered to evaluate its effects on cost-related access barriers, out-of-pocket spending and health outcomes in this growing patient population.

Trends and postoperative outcomes of thyroidectomy after expansion and rise of health insurance deductibles in the fiscal year.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to evaluate a relationship between expansion of High Deductible Health Plans (HDHPs) and the number of thyroid surgery cases with associated postoperative outcomes in the fiscal year. METHODS: Data from TriNetX was used to evaluate the trends in thyroid surgery from 2005 and 2021 between the end of the year (Quarter 4) and the beginning of the year (Quarter 1). Risk of postoperative outcomes were statistically interrogated. RESULTS: The average rate of thyroid surgery in cases/year between Quarter 4 and Quarter 1 was similar after expansion of HDHPs (152; 146; p = 0.64). There was no increased risk of postoperative complications. The rate of surgery decreased significantly for patients with Medicare after implementation of the revised American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines (Quarter 4: p = 0.03; Quarter 1: p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients are less likely to delay thyroid surgery at the end of the year despite higher deductibles.

Out-of-Pocket Cost Modeling of Adjuvant Antiestrogen and Radiation Therapy After Lumpectomy for Early-Stage Breast Cancer Across Medicaid and Medicare Plans.

PURPOSE: The optimal adjuvant therapy (antiestrogen therapy [ET] + radiation therapy or ET alone, or in some reports radiation therapy alone) in older women with early-stage breast cancer has been highly debated. However, granular details on the role of insurance in the out-of-pocket cost for patients receiving ET with or without radiation therapy are lacking. This project disaggregates out-of-pocket costs by insurance plans to increase treatment cost transparency. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Several radiation therapy schedules are accepted standards as per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. For our financial estimate model, we used the 5-fraction and 15-fraction radiation therapy and ET prescribed over a 5-year duration. The total aggregate out-of-pocket costs were determined from the sum of treatment costs, deductibles, and copays/coinsurance based on Medicaid, Original Medicare, Medigap Plan G, and Medicare Part D Rx plans. The model assumes a Medicare- and/or Medicaid-eligible patient ≥70 years of age with node-negative, early-stage estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. Patient out-of-pocket costs were estimated from publicly available insurance data from plan-specific benefit coverage materials using a 5-year time horizon. RESULTS: Original Medicare beneficiaries face a total out-of-pocket treatment charge of $2738.52 for ET alone, $2221.26 for 5-fraction radiation therapy alone, $2573.92 for 15-fraction radiation therapy alone, $3361.26 for combined ET+ 5-fraction radiation therapy, and $3713.92 for combined ET + 15-fraction radiation therapy. Medigap Plan G beneficiaries have an out-of-pocket charge of $1130.00 with radiation therapy alone and face an out-of-pocket of $2270.00 for ET alone and combined ET+ radiation therapy. For Medicaid beneficiaries, all treatments approved by Medicaid are covered without limit, resulting in no out-of-pocket expense for either adjuvant treatment option. CONCLUSIONS: This model (based on actual cost estimates per insurance plan rather than claims data), by estimating expenses within Medicare and Medicaid plans, provides a level of transparency to patient cost. With knowledge of the costs borne by patients themselves, treatment decisions informed by patients' individual priorities and preferences may be further enhanced.

Enrollment in High-Deductible Health Plans and Incident Diabetes Complications.

Importance: Preventing diabetes complications requires monitoring and control of hyperglycemia and cardiovascular risk factors. Switching to high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) has been shown to hinder aspects of diabetes care; however, the association of HDHP enrollment with microvascular and macrovascular diabetes complications is unknown. Objective: To examine the association between an employer-required switch to an HDHP and incident complications of diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used deidentified administrative claims data for US adults with diabetes enrolled in employer-sponsored health plans between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019. Data analysis was performed from May 26, 2022, to January 2, 2024. Exposures: Adults with a baseline year of non-HDHP enrollment who had to switch to an HDHP because their employer offered no non-HDHP alternative in that year were compared with adults who were continuously enrolled in a non-HDHP. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mixed-effects logistic regression models examined the association between switching to an HDHP and, individually, the odds of myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, lower-extremity complication, end-stage kidney disease, proliferative retinopathy, treatment for retinopathy, and blindness. Models were adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and medications, with inverse propensity score weighting used to account for potential selection bias. Results: The study included 42 326 adults who switched to an HDHP (mean [SD] age, 52 [10] years; 19 752 [46.7%] female) and 202 729 adults who did not switch (mean [SD] age, 53 [10] years; 89 828 [44.3%] female). Those who switched to an HDHP had greater odds of experiencing all diabetes complications (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.16 for myocardial infarction; OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.21 for stroke; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.30-1.41 for hospitalization for heart failure; OR, 2.53; 95% CI, 2.38-2.70 for end-stage kidney disease; OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 2.17-2.29 for lower-extremity complication; OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.13-1.21 for proliferative retinopathy; OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 2.18-2.54 for blindness; and OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 2.15-2.41 for retinopathy treatment). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that an employer-driven switch to an HDHP was associated with increased odds of experiencing all diabetes complications. These findings reinforce the potential harm associated with HDHPs for people with diabetes and the importance of affordable and accessible chronic disease management, which is hindered by high out-of-pocket costs incurred by HDHPs.

Changes in Healthcare Spending Attributable to High Deductible Health Plan Offer Among Enrollees with Comorbid Substance Use Disorder and Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: The rise in prevalence of high deductible health plans (HDHPs) in the United States may raise concerns for high-need, high-utilization populations such as those with comorbid chronic conditions. In this study, we examine changes in total and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending attributable to HDHPs for enrollees with comorbid substance use disorder (SUD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: We used de-identified administrative claims data from 2007 to 2017. SUD and CVD were defined using algorithms of ICD 9 and 10 codes and HEDIS guidelines. The main outcome measures of interest were spending measure for all non-SUD/CVD-related services, SUD-specific services, and CVD-specific services, for all services and medications specifically. We assessed both total and OOP spending. We used an intent-to-treat two-part model approach to model spending and computed the marginal effect of HDHP offer as both the dollar change and percent change in spending attributable to HDHP offer. RESULTS: Our sample included 33,684 enrollee-years and was predominantly white and male with a mean age of 53 years. The sample had high demonstrated substantial healthcare utilization with 94% using any non-SUD/CVD services, and 84% and 78% using SUD and CVD services, respectively. HDHP offer was associated with a 17.0% (95% CI = [0.07, 0.27] increase in OOP spending for all non-SUD/CVD services, a 21.1% (95% CI = [0.11, 0.31]) increase in OOP spending for all SUD-specific services, and a 13.1% (95% CI = [0.04, 0.23]) increase in OOP spending for all CVD-specific services. HDHP offer was also associated with a significant increase in OOP spending on non-SUD/CVD-specific medications and SUD-specific medications, but not CVD-specific medications. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that while HDHPs do not change overall levels of annual spending among enrollees with comorbid CVD and SUD, they may increase the financial burden of healthcare services by raising OOP costs, which could negatively impact this high-need and high-utilization population.

Association of copayments with healthcare utilization and expenditures among Medicaid enrollees with a substance use disorder.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the association between copayments and healthcare utilization and expenditures among Medicaid enrollees with substance use disorders. METHODS: This study used claims data (2020-2021) from a private insurer participating in Arkansas's Medicaid expansion. We compared service utilization and expenditures for enrollees in different Medicaid program structures with varying copayments. Enrollees with incomes above 100 % FPL (N = 10,240) had copayments for substance use treatment services while enrollees below 100 % FPL (N = 2478) did not. Demographic, diagnostic, utilization, and cost information came from claims and enrollment information. The study identified substance use and clinical comorbidities using claims from July through December 2020 and evaluated utilization and costs in 2021. Generalized linear models (GLM) estimated outcomes using single equation and two-part modeling. A gamma distribution and log link were used to model expenditures, and negative binomial models were used to model utilization. A falsification test comparing behavioral health telemedicine utilization, which had no cost sharing in either group, assessed whether differences in the groups may be responsible for observed findings. RESULTS: Substance use enrollees with copayments were less likely to have a substance use or behavioral health outpatient (-0.04 PP adjusted; p = 0.001) or inpatient visit (-0.04 PP; p = 0.001) relative to their counterparts without copayments, equal to a 17 % reduction in substance use or behavioral health outpatient services and a nearly 50 % reduction in inpatient visits. The reduced utilization among enrollees with a copayment was associated with a significant reduction in total expenses ($954; p = 0.001) and expenses related to substance use or behavioral health services ($532; p = 0.001). For enrollees with at least one behavioral health visit, there were no differences in outpatient or inpatient utilization or expenditures between enrollees with and without copayments. Copayments had no association with non-behavioral health or telemedicine services where neither group had cost sharing. CONCLUSION: Copayments serve as an initial barrier to substance use treatment, but are not associated with the amount of healthcare utilization conditional on using services. Policy makers and insurers should consider the role of copayments for treatment services among enrollees with substance use disorders in Medicaid programs.

Deductible imputation in administrative medical claims datasets.

OBJECTIVE: To validate imputation methods used to infer plan-level deductibles and determine which enrollees are in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) in administrative claims datasets. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: 2017 medical and pharmaceutical claims from OptumLabs Data Warehouse for US individuals <65 continuously enrolled in an employer-sponsored plan. Data include enrollee and plan characteristics, deductible spending, plan spending, and actual plan-level deductibles. STUDY DESIGN: We impute plan deductibles using four methods: (1) parametric prediction using individual-level spending; (2) parametric prediction with imputation and plan characteristics; (3) highest plan-specific mode of individual annual deductible spending; and (4) deductible spending at the 80th percentile among individuals meeting their deductible. We compare deductibles' levels and categories for imputed versus actual deductibles. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Not applicable. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: All methods had a positive predictive value (PPV) for determining high- versus low-deductible plans of ≥87%; negative predictive values (NPV) were lower. The method imputing plan-specific deductible spending modes was most accurate and least computationally intensive (PPV: 95%; NPV: 91%). This method also best correlated with actual deductible levels; 69% of imputed deductibles were within $250 of the true deductible. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of plan structure data, imputing plan-specific modes of individual annual deductible spending best correlates with true deductibles and best predicts enrollees in HDHPs.

Out-of-Pocket Costs and Outpatient Visits Among Patients With Cancer in High-Deductible Health Plans.

Importance: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) have grown rapidly and may adversely affect access to comprehensive cancer care. Objective: To evaluate the association of HDHPs with out-of-pocket medical costs and outpatient physician visits among patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using 2003 to 2017 data from the deidentified Optum Clinformatics Data Mart database from individuals with employer-sponsored health coverage, adults aged 18 to 64 years with cancer who were enrolled in low-deductible (≤$500 annually) health plans during a baseline year were identified. Patients whose employers then mandated a switch to an HDHP (≥$1000 annual deductible) were assigned to the HDHP group, while contemporaneous individuals with cancer at baseline who had no option but to continue enrollment in low-deductible plans were assigned to the control group. The 2 groups were matched on demographic variables (age, sex, race and ethnicity, US Census region, rural vs urban, and neighborhood poverty level), cancer type, morbidity score, number of baseline physician visits by specialty type, baseline out-of-pocket costs, and employer characteristics. These cohorts were followed up for up to 3 years after the baseline year. Data were analyzed from July 2021 to December 2022. Exposures: Employer-mandated HDHP enrollment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Out-of-pocket medical expenditures and outpatient visits to primary care physicians, cancer specialists, and noncancer specialists. Results: After matching, the sample included 45 708 patients with cancer (2703 patients in the HDHP group and 43 005 matched individuals in the control group); mean (SD) age in the HDHP and control groups was 52.9 (9.3) years and 52.9 (2.3) years, respectively, with 58.5% females in both groups. The matching procedure yielded variable weights for each individual in the control group, resulting in a weighted control group sample of 2703 patients. Patients with cancer who were switched to HDHPs experienced an increase in annual out-of-pocket medical expenditures of 68.1% (95% CI, 51.0%-85.3%; absolute increase, $1349.80 [95% CI, $1060.30-$1639.20]) after the switch compared with those who remained in traditional health plans. At follow-up, the number of oncology visits did not differ between the 2 groups (relative difference, 0.1%; 95% CI, -8.4% to 9.4%); however, the HDHP group had 10.8% (95% CI, -15.5% to -5.9%) fewer visits to primary care physicians and 5.9% (95% CI, -11.2% to -0.3%) fewer visits to noncancer specialists. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that after enrollment in HDHPs, patients with cancer experienced substantial increases in out-of-pocket medical costs. The number of visits to oncologists was unchanged during follow-up, but the number of visits to noncancer physicians was lower. These findings suggest that HDHPs are unlikely to unfavorably affect key oncology services but might lead to less comprehensive care of cancer survivors.

Impact of income-based public drug coverage deductibles on adherence to asthma medications.

BACKGROUND: Cost-related nonadherence to medications can be a barrier to asthma management. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the impact of public drug plan deductibles on adherence to asthma medications. METHODS: We used a quasi-experimental regression discontinuity analysis to determine whether thresholds in deductibles for public drug coverage, determined on the basis of annual household income, decreased medication use among lower-income children and adults with asthma in British Columbia from 2013 to 2018. Using dispensed medication records, we evaluated deductible thresholds at annual household incomes of $15,000 (a deductible increase from 0% to 2% of annual household income), and $30,000 (a deductible increase from 2% to 3% annual household income). We evaluated medication costs, use, the ratio of inhaled corticosteroids-containing controller medications to total medications, excessive use of short-acting ß-agonists, and the proportion of days covered by controller therapies. All costs are reported in 2020 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: Overall, 88,935 individuals contributed 443,847 person-years of follow-up (57% of female sex, mean age 31 years). Public drug subsidy decreased by -$41.74 (95% CI, -$28.34 to -$55.13) at the $15,000-deductible threshold, a 28% reduction, and patient costs increased by $48.45 (95% CI, $35.37-$61.53). The $30,000 deductible threshold did not affect public drug costs (P = .31), but patient costs increased by $27.65 (95% CI, $15.22-$40.09), which is an 11% increase. Asthma-related medication use, inhaled corticosteroids-to-total medication ratio, excessive use of short-acting ß-agonists, and proportion of days covered by controller therapies were not impacted by deductible thresholds. CONCLUSION: Income-based deductibles reduced public drug costs with no effect on asthma-related medication use, adherence to controller therapies, or excessive reliever therapy use in lower-income individuals with asthma.

An Investigation of the Impact of Expanding High-Deductible Health Plans on Patient Decision for Cochlear Implant Surgery and Postoperative Outcomes.

HYPOTHESIS: After the expansion of high deductibles, patients will delay cochlear implant (CI) surgery to the end of the year, and the risk of postoperative known risks will increase. BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act was associated with increased enrollment in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs), which resulted in rising health insurance deductibles. Health insurance plans can cover a patient's cost of healthcare once the deductible is met. Patients have been shown to be economic rational decision makers and make decisions based on cost rather than health. They wait for their deductible to be met, typically at the end of the year, then proceed to have costly care. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of rising health insurance deductibles on the rate and postoperative outcomes of cochlear implantation and to assess changes by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. METHODS: TriNetX was used to accumulate summary data on patients who obtained a CI between 2005 and 2022 at the beginning (quarter 1) and the end of the year (quarter 4) from the electronic medical records of 75 healthcare organizations. The trends in average rate of cochlear implantation and resultant postoperative known risks or complications were statistically evaluated. RESULTS: After expansion of HDHPs, the rate of cochlear implantation between quarter 4 (19 cases per year) and quarter 1 (17 cases/year) was similar (p = 0.18). For all patient groups, the case volume significantly increased. Between quarter 4 and quarter 1, postoperative tinnitus was more common in the beginning of the year (risk ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The number of patients receiving CIs significantly increased despite the expansion of HDHPs. Tinnitus was a rare postoperative known risk in the beginning of the year. Patients are less likely concerned about cost of CI surgery because of the impact of hearing loss on quality of life.

Association of High-Deductible Health Plans and Time to Surgery for Breast and Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) have been shown to delay timing of breast and colon cancer screening, although the relationship to the timing of cancer surgery is unknown. The objective of this study was to characterize timing of surgery for breast and colon cancer patients undergoing cancer operations following routine screening. STUDY DESIGN: Data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims Database from 2007 to 2016 were queried to identify patients who underwent screening mammogram and/or colonoscopy. The calendar quarters of screening and surgery were analyzed with ordinal logistic regression. The time from screening to surgery (time to surgery, TTS) was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard function. RESULTS: Among 32,562,751 patients who had screening mammograms, 0.7% underwent breast cancer surgery within the following year. Among 9,325,238 patients who had screening colonoscopies, 0.9% were followed by colon cancer surgery within a year. The odds of screening (OR 1.146 for mammogram, 1.272 for colonoscopy; p < 0.001) and surgery (OR 1.120 for breast surgery, 1.219 for colon surgery; p < 0.001) increased each quarter for HDHPs compared to low-deductible health plans. Enrollment in an HDHP was not associated with a difference in TTS. Screening in Q3 or Q4 was associated with shorter TTS compared to screening in Q1 (hazard ratio 1.061 and 1.046, respectively; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: HDHPs were associated with delays in screening and surgery. However, HDHPs were not associated with delays in TTS. Interventions to improve cancer care outcomes in the HDHP population should concentrate on reducing barriers to timely screening.

Impact of Coinsurance Reduction Policy on Healthcare Utilization Among Children Under 15.

BACKGROUND: On October 1, 2017, a new coinsurance reduction policy for children under 15 was introduced to minimize the lack of inpatient medical services for economic reasons and secure children's access to medical care. METHODS: This study analyzes the effect of this coinsurance reduction policy on healthcare utilization using data from the National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort between 2015 and 2019. Groups were classified by 3 case groups and a control group according to age. The dependent variables were inpatient cost, admission, length of hospitalization, outpatient cost and visit, and total cost. The difference-in-differences method was used to examine changes in healthcare utilization among the case and control groups after policy implementation. RESULTS: Children of the age group 1-5 exhibited an increase in inpatient services and a decrease in outpatient services. There was a 16.17% increase in inpatient cost, 8.55% increase in inpatient admission, 10.67% increase in inpatient length of hospitalization, -9.14% decline in outpatient cost, and -6.79% decline in outpatient visits. Regarding children in the age groups of 6-10 and 11-15, the effect of the policy was inconclusive. CONCLUSION: The reduction in coinsurance rate policy in hospitalization among children has increased inpatient services and reduced outpatient services for 1-5-year-olds-a substitute effect was observed in this group. There is need for further research to examine the long-term effects of the coinsurance reduction policy.

Association of High-Deductible Health Plans With Health Care Use and Costs for Patients With Cardiovascular Disease.

Background By increasing cost sharing, high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) aim to reduce low-value health care use. The association of HDHPs with health care use and costs in patients with chronic cardiovascular disease is unknown. Methods and Results This longitudinal cohort study analyzed 57 690 privately insured patients, aged 18 to 64 years, from a large commercial claims database with chronic cardiovascular disease from 2011 to 2019. Health care entities in which all or most beneficiaries switched from being in a traditional plan to an HDHP were identified. A difference-in-differences design was used to account for differences between individuals who remained in traditional plans and those who switched to HDHPs and to assess changes in health care use and costs. Among the 934 individuals in the HDHP group and the 56 756 in the traditional plan group, switching to an HDHP was not associated with statistically significant changes in annual outpatient visits, hospitalizations, or emergency department visits (-8.3% [95% CI, -16.8 to 1.1], -28.5% [95% CI, -62.1 to 34.6], and 11.2% [95% CI, -20.9 to 56.5], respectively). Switching to an HDHP was associated with an increase of $921 (95% CI, $743-$1099) in out-of-pocket costs but no statistically significant difference in total health care costs. Conclusions Among commercially insured patients with chronic cardiovascular disease, switching to an HDHP was not associated with a change in health care use but was associated with an increase in out-of-pocket costs. Although health care use by individuals with chronic cardiovascular disease may not be sensitive to higher cost sharing associated with HDHP enrollment, there may be a significant increase in patients' financial burden.

Sexual Orientation, High-Deductible Health Plans, And Financial Barriers To Care.

Among US adults in 2013-18, we found high-deductible health plan enrollment to be the lowest among heterosexual and gay/lesbian adults in families with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level and the highest among bisexual adults in families with incomes at or above 400 percent of poverty. Gay/lesbian and bisexual adults in these plans experienced greater financial barriers to health care than heterosexual adults.

The Effects of High Deductible Health Plans on Breast Cancer Treatment and Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: High-deductible health plans (HDHP) have expanded rapidly creating the potential for substantially increased out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The associated financial strain has been associated with the decision to forego care, but the impact on patients undergoing breast cancer reconstruction is not known. We examined the impact of HDHPs vs. LDHPs and OOP maximums on breast reconstruction. METHODS: Between January 2014 and 2020, patients who had breast reconstruction by the 2 senior authors were retrospectively evaluated. Information on patient's insurance contract was collected. Criteria for HDHP and LDHP were defined following section 223(c)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. All aspects of cancer diagnosis, cancer treatment, and surgical procedures were reviewed. RESULTS: About 507 patients (262 in LDHPs and 245 in HDHPs) were reviewed. Patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy were more likely to be enrolled in HDHPs (25.7% vs. 36.8%, P < .01). There was no significant difference in total operations, number of revisions, or length of reconstruction in days or calendar years. Additionally, no difference existed in the choice of autologous implant reconstruction. CONCLUSION: The cost-sharing burden of HDHPs creates the potential for patients to forego care, and thus, effort should be directed toward increasing patient education concerning health plan benefits. Utilization of postdeductible spending, as well as resources of health savings accounts, may limit the adverse effects of HDHPs. This study also emphasizes the importance for providers to increase cost transparency.

Choice of high-deductible health plans among enrollees with a substance use disorder.

INTRODUCTION: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) expose enrollees to increased out-of-pocket costs for their medical care, which can exacerbate the undertreatment of substance use disorders (SUDs). However, the factors that influence whether an enrollee with SUD chooses an HDHP are not well understood. In this study, we examine the factors associated with an individual with an SUD's decision to enroll in an HDHP. METHODS: Using de-identified administrative commercial claims and enrollment data from OptumLabs (2007-2017), we identified individuals at employers offering at least one HDHP and one non-HDHP plan. We modeled whether an enrollee chose an HDHP using linear regression on plan and enrollee demographic characteristics. Key plan characteristics included whether a plan had a health savings account (HSA) or a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA). Key demographic variables included age, race/ethnicity, census block income range, census block highest educational attainment, and sex. We separately investigate new enrollment decisions (i.e., not previously enrolled in an HDHP) and re-enrollment decisions, as well as decisions among single enrollees and families of differing sizes. The study also adjusted models for additional plan characteristics, employer and year fixed effects, and census division. Robust standard errors were clustered at the employer level. RESULTS: The sample comprised 30,832 plans and 318,334 enrollees. Among enrollees with new enrollment decisions, 24.6 % chose an HDHP; 93.8 % of HDHP enrollees chose to re-enroll in an HDHP. The study found the presence of a plan HRA to be associated with a higher probability of new and re-enrollment in an HDHP. We found that older enrollees with SUD were less likely to newly enroll in an HDHP, while enrollees who were non-White, living in lower-income census blocks, and living in lower educational attainment census blocks were more likely to newly enroll in an HDHP. Higher levels of health care utilization in the prior year were associated with a lower probability of newly enrolling in an HDHP but associated with a higher probability of re-enrolling. CONCLUSION: Given the emerging evidence that HDHPs may discourage SUD treatment, greater HDHP enrollment could exacerbate health disparities.

Individuals Eligible for Lung Cancer Screening Less Likely to Receive Screening When Enrolled in Health Plans With Deductibles.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and commercial insurance plans began covering lung cancer screening (LCS) without patient cost-sharing for all plans. We explore the impact of enrolling into a deductible plan on the utilization of LCS services despite having no out-of-pocket cost requirement. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed data from the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process Lung Consortium. Our cohort included non-Medicare LCS-eligible individuals enrolled in managed care organizations between February 5, 2015, and February 28, 2019. We estimate a series of sequential logistic regression models examining utilization across the sequence of events required for baseline LCS. We report the marginal effects of enrollment into deductible plans compared with enrollment in no-deductible plans. RESULTS: The total effect of deductible plan enrollment was a 1.8 percentage-point (PP) decrease in baseline LCS. Sequential logistic regression results that explore each transition separately indicate deductible plan enrollment was associated with a 4.3 PP decrease in receipt of clinician visit, a 1.7 PP decrease in receipt of LCS order, and a 7.0 PP decrease in receipt of baseline LCS. Reductions persisted across all observable races and ethnicities. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest individuals enrolled in deductible plans are more likely to forgo preventive LCS services despite requiring no out-of-pocket costs. This result may indicate that increased cost-sharing is associated with suboptimal choices to forgo recommended LCS. Alternatively, this effect may indicate individuals enrolling into deductible plans prefer less health care utilization. Patient outreach interventions at the health plan level may improve LCS.

Utilization and Spending With Preventive Drug Lists for Asthma Medications in High-Deductible Health Plans.

Importance: High-deductible health plans with health savings accounts (HDHP-HSAs) incentivize patients to use less health care, including necessary care. Preventive drug lists (PDLs) exempt high-value medications from the deductible, reducing out-of-pocket cost sharing; the associations of PDLs with health outcomes among patients with asthma is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the associations of a PDL for asthma medications on utilization, adverse outcomes, and patient spending for HDHP-HSA enrollees with asthma. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control study used matched groups of patients with asthma before and after an insurance design change using a national commercial health insurance claims data set from 2004-2017. Participants included patients aged 4 to 64 years enrolled for 1 year in an HDHP-HSA without a PDL in which asthma medications were subject to the deductible who then transitioned to an HDHP-HSA with a PDL that included asthma medications; these patients were compared with a matched weighted sample of patients with 2 years of continuous enrollment in an HDHP-HSA without a PDL. Models controlled for patient demographics and asthma severity and were stratified by neighborhood income. Analyses were conducted from October 2020 to June 2023. Exposures: Employer-mandated addition of a PDL that included asthma medications to an existing HDHP-HSA. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were utilization of asthma medications on the PDL (controllers and albuterol), asthma exacerbations (oral steroid bursts and asthma-related emergency department use), and out-of-pocket spending (all and asthma-specific). Results: A total of 12 174 participants (mean [SD] age, 36.9 [16.9] years; 6848 [56.25%] female) were included in analyses. Compared with no PDL, PDLs were associated with increased rates of 30-day fills per enrollee for any controller medication (change, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.17] fills per enrollee; 12.9% increase) and for combination inhaled corticosteroid long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS-LABA) medications (change, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.10] fills per enrollee; 25.4% increase), and increased proportion of days covered with ICS-LABA (6.0% [0.7% to 11.3%] of days; 15.6% increase). Gaining a PDL was associated with decreased out-of-pocket spending on asthma care (change, -$34 [95% CI, -$47 to -$21] per enrollee; 28.4% difference), but there was no significant change in asthma exacerbations and no difference in results by income. Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study, reducing cost-sharing for asthma medications through a PDL was associated with increased adherence to controller medications, notably ICS-LABA medications used by patients with more severe asthma, but was not associated with improved clinical outcomes. These findings suggest that PDLs are a potential strategy to improve access and affordability of asthma care for patients in HDHP-HSAs.