Insurance churn after adult traumatic injury: A national evaluation among a large private insurance database.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic injury leads to significant disability, with injured patients often requiring substantial health care resources to return to work and baseline health. Temporary disability or inability to work can result in changes or loss of employer-based private insurance coverage, which may significantly impact health care access and outcomes. Among privately insured patients, we hypothesized increased instability in insurance coverage for patients with higher severity of injury. METHODS: Adults 18 years and older presenting to a hospital with traumatic injury were evaluated for insurance churn using Clinformatics Data Mart private-payer claims. Insurance churn was defined as cessation of enrollment in the patient's private health insurance plan. Using Injury Severity Score (ISS), we compared insurance churn over the year following injury between patients with mild (ISS, <9), moderate (ISS, 9-15), severe (ISS, 16-24), and very severe (ISS, >24) injuries. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare time with insurance churn by ISS category. Flexible parametric regression was used to estimate hazard ratios for insurance churn. RESULTS: Among 750,862 privately insured patients suffering from a traumatic injury, 50% experienced insurance churn within 1 year after injury. Compared with patients who remained on their insurance plan, patients who experienced insurance churn were younger and more likely male and non-White. The median time to insurance churn was 7.7 months for those with mild traumatic injury, 7.5 months for moderately or severely injured, and 7.1 months for the very severely injured. In multivariable analysis, increasing injury severity was associated with higher rates of insurance churn compared with mild injury, up to 14% increased risk for the very severely injured. CONCLUSION: Increasing severity of traumatic injury is associated with higher levels of health coverage churn among the privately insured. Lack of continuous access to health services may prolong recovery and further aggravate the medical and social impact of significant traumatic injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Value Based Evaluations; Level III.

Financial Burden of Traumatic Injury Amongst the Privately Insured.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the overall financial burden associated with traumatic injury amongst patients with private insurance and assess the effect of high deductible plans on out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Traumatic injury can be a source of unexpected financial burden for households. However, the effect of increasing participation in higher cost-sharing private health insurance plans remains unknown. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort observational study, using the Clinformatics Data Mart Database, a nationwide single-payer administrative claims database to identify US adults who required emergency department services or hospital admission for single traumatic injury from 2008 to 2018. A 2-part model using a logistic regression and a generalized linear model with gamma distribution and log link was used to evaluate 12-month OOPCs after traumatic injury. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the likelihood of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) after injury. RESULTS: Of 426,945 included patients, 53% were male, 71% were white, and median age was 42 years. Patients faced monthly OOPC of $660 at the time of their injury. High deductible plan enrollment was associated with an increase of $1703 in 12-month OOPC after trauma, compared to those covered by traditional health plans. In addition to high deductible health plan enrollment, worsening injury severity and longer hospital stays were also associated with increased 12-month OOPC after trauma. Non-white minorities paid less 12-month OOPC after trauma compared to non-Hispanic white patients, but also used fewer services. Overall, the incidence of CHE was 5%; however high-deductible health plan enrollees faced a 13% chance of CHE. CONCLUSIONS: Privately insured trauma patients face substantial OOPCs at the time of their injuries. High-deductible health plans are associated with increased financial vulnerability after trauma.

Out-of-Pocket Costs Among Patients With a New Cancer Diagnosis Enrolled in High-Deductible Health Plans vs Traditional Insurance.

Importance: The financial burden of a cancer diagnosis is increasing rapidly with advances in cancer care. Simultaneously, more individuals are enrolling in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) vs traditional insurance than ever before. Objective: To characterize the out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs) of cancer care for individuals in HDHPs vs traditional insurance plans. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used the administrative claims data of a single national insurer in the US for 134 826 patients aged 18 to 63 years with a new diagnosis of breast, colorectal, lung, or other cancer from 2008 to 2018 with 24 months or more of continuous enrollment. Propensity score matching was performed to create comparator groups based on the presence or absence of an incident cancer diagnosis. Exposures: A new cancer diagnosis and enrollment in an HDHP vs a traditional health insurance plan. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was OOPCs among individuals with breast, colon, lung, or all other types of cancer combined compared with those with no cancer diagnosis. A triple difference-in-differences analysis was performed to identify incremental OOPCs based on cancer diagnosis and enrollment in HDHPs vs traditional plans. Results: After propensity score matching, 134 826 patients remained in each of the cancer (73 572 women [55%]; median age, 53 years [IQR, 46-58 years]; 110 071 non-Hispanic White individuals [82%]) and noncancer (66 619 women [49%]; median age, 53 years [IQR, 46-59 years]; 105 023 non-Hispanic White individuals [78%]) cohorts. Compared with baseline costs of medical care among individuals without cancer, a breast cancer diagnosis was associated with the highest incremental OOPC ($714.68; 95% CI, $664.91-$764.45), followed by lung ($475.51; 95% CI, $340.16-$610.86), colorectal ($361.41; 95% CI, $294.34-$428.48), and all other types of cancer combined ($90.51; 95% CI, $74.22-$106.79). Based on the triple difference-in-differences analysis, compared with patients without cancer enrolled in HDHPs, those with breast cancer paid $1683.36 in additional yearly OOPCs (95% CI, $1576.66-$1790.07), those with colorectal cancer paid $1420.06 more (95% CI, $1232.31-$1607.80), those with lung cancer paid $467.25 more (95% CI, $130.13-$804.37), and those with other types of cancer paid $550.87 more (95% CI, $514.75-$586.99). Conclusions and Relevance: Patients with cancer and private insurance experienced sharp increases in OOPCs compared with those without cancer, which was amplified among those with HDHPs. These findings illustrate the degree to which HDHPs offer poorer protection than traditional insurance against unexpected health care expenses. Coupled with the increasing cost of cancer care, higher cost sharing in the form of increasing enrollment in HDHPs requires further research on the potential clinical consequences through delayed or foregone care.

Complications, Not Minimally Invasive Surgical Technique, Are Associated with Increased Cost after Esophagectomy.

Background. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) techniques offer similar oncological and surgical outcomes to open methods. The effects of MIE on hospital costs are not well documented. Methods. We reviewed the electronic records of patients who underwent esophagectomy at a single academic institution between January 2012 and December 2014. Esophagectomy techniques were grouped into open, hybrid, MIE, and transhiatal (THE) esophagectomy. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the impact of surgery on total hospital cost after esophagectomy. Results. 80 patients were identified: 11 THE, 11 open, 41 hybrid, and 17 MIE. Median total cost of the hospitalization was $31,375 and was similar between surgical technique groups. MIE was associated with higher intraoperative costs, but not total hospital cost. Multivariable analysis revealed that the presence of a complication, increased age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class IV (ASA4), and preoperative coronary artery disease (CAD) were associated with significantly increased cost. Conclusions. Despite the association of MIE with higher operation costs, the total hospital cost was not different between surgical technique groups. Postoperative complications and severe preoperative comorbidities are significant drivers of hospital cost associated with esophagectomy. Surgeons should choose technique based on clinical factors, rather than cost implications.