"You Have to Rob Peter to Pay Paul So Your Kid Can Breathe": Using Qualitative Methods to Characterize Trade-Offs and Economic Impact of Asthma Care Costs.

BACKGROUND: Economic analyses often focus narrowly on individual patients' health care use, while overlooking the growing economic burden of out-of-pocket costs for health care on other family medical and household needs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore intrafamilial trade-offs families make when paying for asthma care. RESEARCH DESIGN: In 2018, we conducted telephone interviews with 59 commercially insured adults who had asthma and/or had a child with asthma. We analyzed data qualitatively via thematic content analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Our purposive sample included participants with high-deductible and no/low-deductible health plans. We recruited participants through a national asthma advocacy organization and a large nonprofit regional health plan. MEASURES: Our semistructured interview guide explored domains related to asthma adherence and cost burden, cost management strategies, and trade-offs. RESULTS: Participants reported that they tried to prioritize paying for asthma care, even at the expense of their family's overall financial well-being. When facing conflicting demands, participants described making trade-offs between asthma care and other health and nonmedical needs based on several criteria: (1) short-term needs versus longer term financial health; (2) needs of children over adults; (3) acuity of the condition; (4) effectiveness of treatment; and (5) availability of lower cost alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that cost-sharing for asthma care often has negative financial consequences for families that traditional, individually focused economic analyses are unlikely to capture. This work highlights the need for patient-centered research to evaluate the impact of health care costs at the family level, holistically measuring short-term and long-term family financial outcomes that extend beyond health care use alone.

Strategies commercially-insured families use to manage the cost of asthma care: a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVE: Families affected by asthma report difficulty adhering to care regimens because of high medication costs, coupled with increased cost sharing required by some insurance plans. To inform efforts to support adherence, we conducted a qualitative study to explore how families manage asthma care costs. METHODS: We conducted phone interviews with commercially-insured, US adults (n = 59) who had asthma and/or a child with asthma. Our purposive sample included participants with high- and low/no-deductible health plans. We analyzed data using thematic content analysis to identify strategies for managing asthma care costs and to assess strategies' implications for adherence. RESULTS: Our analysis identified four overarching strategies for managing asthma care costs. First, participants used prevention strategies to avoid costly acute care by minimizing exposure to asthma triggers and adhering strictly to preventive medication regimens. Second, participants used shopping strategies to reduce costs, including by comparing medication prices across pharmacies, using medication coupons or free samples, and switching to lower-cost medications. Third, budgeting strategies involved putting aside funds, including in tax-exempt health savings accounts, or taking on debt to pay for care. Finally, some participants sought to reduce costs by forgoing recommended care, including by skipping medication doses or replacing prescribed medications with alternative therapies. CONCLUSION: Commercially-insured families use a wide range of strategies to manage asthma care costs, with both positive and negative implications for adherence. Our typology of asthma cost management strategies can inform insurance redesign and other interventions to help families safely reduce costs and maximize adherence to recommended care.

Impact of a Patient Navigator Program on Hospital-Based and Outpatient Utilization Over 180 Days in a Safety-Net Health System.

BACKGROUND: With emerging global payment structures, medical systems need to understand longer-term impacts of care transition strategies. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a care transition program using patient navigators (PNs) on health service utilization among high-risk safety-net patients over a 180-day period. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial conducted October 2011 through April 2013. PARTICIPANTS: Patients admitted to the general medicine service with ≥1 readmission risk factor: (1) age ≥ 60; (2) in-network inpatient admission within prior 6 months; (3) index length of stay ≥ 3 days; or (4) admission diagnosis of heart failure or (5) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The analytic sample included 739 intervention patients, 1182 controls. INTERVENTIONS: Through hospital visits and 30 days of post-discharge telephone outreach, PNs provided coaching and assistance with medications, appointments, transportation, communication with primary care, and self-care. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes: (1) hospital-based utilization, a composite of ED visits and hospital admissions; (2) hospital admissions; (3) ED visits; and (4) outpatient visits. We evaluated outcomes following an index discharge, stratified by patient age (≥ 60 and < 60 years), using a 180-day time frame divided into six 30-day periods. KEY RESULTS: The PN program produced starkly different outcomes by patient age. Among older PN patients, hospital-based utilization was consistently lower than controls, producing an 18.7% cumulative decrease at 180 days (p = 0.038); outpatient visits increased in the critical first 30-day period (p = 0.006). Among younger PN patients, hospital-based utilization was 31.7% (p = 0.038) higher at 180 days, largely reflecting sharply higher utilization in the initial 30 days (p = 0.002), with non-significant changes thereafter; outpatient visits experienced no significant changes. CONCLUSIONS: A PN program serving high-risk safety-net patients differentially impacted patients based on age, and among younger patients, outcomes varied over time. Our findings highlight the importance for future research to evaluate care transition programs among different subpopulations and over longer time periods.

Financial barriers to care among low-income children with asthma: health care reform implications.

IMPORTANCE: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes subsidies that reduce patient cost sharing for low-income families. Limited information on the effects of cost sharing among children is available to guide these efforts. OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations between cost sharing, income, and care seeking and financial stress among children with asthma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A telephone survey in 2012 about experiences during the prior year within an integrated health care delivery system. Respondents included 769 parents of children aged 4 to 11 years with asthma. Of these, 25.9% of children received public subsidies; 21.7% were commercially insured with household incomes at or below 250% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and 18.2% had higher cost-sharing levels for all services (e.g., ≥$75 for emergency department visits). We classified children with asthma based on (1) current receipt of a subsidy (i.e., Medicaid or Children's Health Insurance Program) or potential eligibility for ACA low-income cost sharing or premium subsidies in 2014 (i.e., income ≤250%, 251%-400%, or >400% of the FPL) and (2) cost-sharing levels for prescription drugs, office visits, and emergency department visits. We examined the frequency of changes in care seeking and financial stress due to asthma care costs across these groups using logistic regression, adjusted for patient/family characteristics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Switching to cheaper asthma drugs, using less medication than prescribed, delaying/avoiding any office or emergency department visits, and financial stress (eg, cutting back on necessities) because of the costs of asthma care. RESULTS: After adjustment, parents at or below 250% of the FPL with lower vs higher cost-sharing levels were less likely to delay or avoid taking their children to a physician's office visit (3.8% vs. 31.6%; odds ratio, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.01-0.39]) and the emergency department (1.2% vs. 19.4%; 0.05 [0.01-0.25]) because of cost; higher-income parents and those whose children were receiving public subsidies (eg, Medicaid) were also less likely to forego their children's care than parents at or below 250% of the FPL with higher cost-sharing levels. Overall, 15.6% of parents borrowed money or cut back on necessities to pay for their children's asthma care. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Cost-related barriers to care among children with asthma were concentrated among low-income families with higher cost-sharing levels. The ACA's low-income subsidies could reduce these barriers for many families, but millions of dependents for whom employer-sponsored family coverage is unaffordable could remain at risk for cost-related problems because of ACA subsidy eligibility rules.

Cancer screening before and after switching to a high-deductible health plan.

BACKGROUND: Health plans with high deductibles could lead patients to avoid preventive care, such as cancer screening. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of membership in a high-deductible health plan on cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening. DESIGN: Before-after comparison between groups. SETTING: A high-deductible health plan and an HMO in Massachusetts. The high-deductible health plan fully covered mammography, Papanicolaou tests, and fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) but not colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or double-contrast barium enema (DCBE). PARTICIPANTS: 3169 high-deductible health plan members and 27,022 HMO members (who served as controls). MEASUREMENTS: Change in the proportions of patients undergoing breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. RESULTS: Cancer screening in the high-deductible health plan group was unchanged from baseline to follow-up (adjusted ratios of change, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.19] for breast cancer, 1.04 [CI, 0.92 to 1.17] for cervical cancer, and 1.02 [CI, 0.89 to 1.16] for colorectal cancer). High-deductible health plan members had colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and DCBE less often (ratio of change, 0.73 [CI, 0.56 to 0.95]) and FOBT more often (ratio of change, 1.16 [CI, 1.01 to 1.33]) than HMO members. LIMITATIONS: Population screening frequency was probably underestimated because the study could not assess screening before the baseline year. The study may have included people ineligible for screening because of previous colectomy, mastectomy, or hysterectomy. The findings are limited to a population with relatively high socioeconomic status, which is typical of employed, commercially insured populations. CONCLUSION: Members of a high-deductible health plan did not seem to change their use of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening when tests were fully covered. However, members may have substituted a fully covered screening test (FOBT) for tests subject to the deductible (colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and DCBE).

Newborn early discharge revisited: are California newborns receiving recommended postnatal services?

CONTEXT: Responding to safety concerns, federal and state legislation mandated coverage of minimum postnatal stays and state legislation in California mandated coverage of follow-up after early discharge. Little is known about the postnatal services newborns are receiving. OBJECTIVE: To describe rates of early discharge and of timely follow-up for early-discharged newborns. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective, population-based cohort study using a 1999 postpartum survey in California. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2828 infants of mothers with medically low-risk singleton births. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of early discharge (