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.

Impact of income-based deductibles on drug use and health care utilization among older adults.

BACKGROUND: Income-based deductibles are present in several provincial public drug plans in Canada and have been the subject of extensive debate. We studied the impact of such deductibles in British Columbia's Fair PharmaCare plan on drug and health care utilization among older adults. METHODS: We used a quasi-experimental regression discontinuity design to compare the impact of deductibles in BC's PharmaCare plan between older community-dwelling adults registered for the plan who were born in 1928 through 1939 (no deductible) and those born in 1940 through 1951 (deductible equivalent to 2% of household income). We used 1.2 million person-years of data between 2003 and 2015 to study public drug plan expenditures, overall drug use, and physician and hospital resource utilization in these 2 groups. RESULTS: The income-based deductible led to a 28.6% decrease in person-years in which public drug plan benefits were received (95% confidence interval [CI] -29.7% to -27.5%) and to a reduction in the per capita extent of annual benefits by $205.59 (95% CI -$247.81 to -$163.37). Despite this difference in public subsidy, we found no difference in the number of drugs received or in total drug spending once privately paid amounts were accounted for (p = 0.4 and 0.8, respectively). Further, we found only small or nonexistent changes in health care resource utilization at the 1939 threshold. INTERPRETATION: A modest income-based deductible had a considerable impact on the extent of public subsidy for prescription drugs. However, it had only a trivial impact on overall access to medicines and use of other health services. Unlike copayments, modest income-based deductibles may safely reduce public spending on drugs for some population groups.

The Slowdown in Employer Insurance Cost Growth: Why Many Workers Still Feel the Pinch.

Issue: Although predictions that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would lead to reductions in employer-sponsored health coverage have not been realized, some of the law's critics maintain the ACA is nevertheless driving higher premium and deductible costs for businesses and their workers. Goal: To compare cost growth in employer-sponsored health insurance before and after 2010, when the ACA was enacted, and to compare changes in these costs relative to changes in workers' incomes. Methods: The authors analyzed federal Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data to compare cost trends over the 10-year period from 2006 to 2015. Key findings and conclusions: Compared to the five years leading up to the ACA, premium growth for single health insurance policies offered by employers slowed both in the nation overall and in 33 states and the District of Columbia. There has been a similar slowdown in growth in the amounts employees contribute to health plan costs. Yet many families feel pinched by their health care costs: despite a recent surge, income growth has not kept pace in many areas of the U.S. Employee contributions to premiums and deductibles amounted to 10.1 percent of U.S. median income in 2015, compared to 6.5 percent in 2006. These costs are higher relative to income in many southeastern and southern states, where incomes are below the national average.

Changes in Consumer Cost-Sharing for Health Plans Sold in the ACA's Insurance Marketplaces, 2015 to 2016.

This brief examines changes in consumer health plan cost-sharing--deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, and out-of-pocket limits--for coverage offered in the Affordable Care Act's marketplaces between 2015 and 2016. Three of seven measures studied rose moderately in 2016, an increase attributable in part to a shift in the mix of plans offered in the marketplaces, from plans with higher actuarial value (platinum and gold plans) to those that have less generous coverage (bronze and silver plans). Nearly 60 percent of enrollees in marketplace plans receive cost-sharing reductions as part of income-based assistance. For enrollees without cost-sharing reductions, average copayments, deductibles, and out-of-pocket limits remain considerably higher under bronze and silver plans than under employer-based plans; cost-sharing is similar in gold plans and employer plans. Marketplace plans are more likely than employer-based plans to impose a deductible for prescription drugs but no less likely to do so for primary care visits.

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.

The problem of underinsurance and how rising deductibles will make it worse. Findings from the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey, 2014.

New estimates from the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey, 2014, indicate that 23 percent of 19-to-64-year-old adults who were insured all year--or 31 million people--had such high out-of-pocket costs or deductibles relative to their incomes that they were underinsured. These estimates are statistically unchanged from 2010 and 2012, but nearly double those found in 2003 when the measure was first introduced in the survey. The share of continuously insured adults with high deductibles has tripled, rising from 3 percent in 2003 to 11 percent in 2014. Half (51%) of underinsured adults reported problems with medical bills or debt and more than two of five (44%) reported not getting needed care because of cost. Among adults who were paying off medical bills, half of underinsured adults and 41 percent of privately insured adults with high deductibles had debt loads of $4,000 or more.

State trends in the cost of employer health insurance coverage, 2003-2013.

From 2010 to 2013--the years following the implementation of the Affordable Care Act--there has been a marked slowdown in premium growth in 31 states and the District of Columbia. Yet, the costs employees and their families pay out-of-pocket for deductibles and their share of premiums continued to rise, consuming a greater share of incomes across the country. In all but a handful of states, average deductibles more than doubled over the past decade for employees working in large and small firms. Workers are paying more but getting less protective benefits. Costs are particularly high, compared with median income, in Southern and South Central states, where incomes are below the national average. Based on recent forecasts that predict an uptick in private insurance growth rates starting in 2015, securing slow cost growth for workers, families, and employers will likely require action to address rising costs of medical care services.

The Benefit Aftereffects of ACA--Accelerating Toward a New Health Economy.

While the Affordable Care Act (ACA) focused largely on improving access to health care coverage for the uninsured, its broader and longer-term influence may have been its impact on accelerating key trends and strategies that major employers and other stakeholders have been targeting for years. This article looks at some of these trends, where we were pre-ACA and how ACA (through benefit mandates, shared responsibility penalties, Cadillac plan tax, health information technology, accountable care organizations, etc.) has helped to accelerate and refocus efforts. In addition, the public exchange paradigm has given rise to a private exchange movement that is helping further accelerate the transformation of the New Health Economy.

Implementing the Affordable Care Act: state approaches to premium rate reforms in the individual health insurance market.

The Affordable Care Act protects people from being charged more for insurance based on factors like medical history or gender and establishes new limits on how insurers can adjust premiums for age, tobacco use, and geography. This brief examines how states have implemented these federal reforms in their individual health insurance markets. We identify state rating standards for the first year of full implementation of reform and explore critical considerations weighed by policymakers as they determined how to adopt the law's requirements. Most states took the opportunity to customize at least some aspect of their rating standards. Interviews with state regulators reveal that many states pursued implementation strategies intended primarily to minimize market disruption and premium shock and therefore established standards as consistent as possible with existing rules or market practice. Meanwhile, some states used the transition period to strengthen consumer protections, particularly with respect to tobacco rating.

Delayed and forgone care for families with chronic conditions in high-deductible health plans.

BACKGROUND: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are an increasingly common strategy to contain health care costs. Individuals with chronic conditions are at particular risk for increased out-of-pocket costs in HDHPs and resulting cost-related underuse of essential health care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether families with chronic conditions in HDHPs have higher rates of delayed or forgone care due to cost, compared with those in traditional health insurance plans. DESIGN: This mail and phone survey used multiple logistic regression to compare family-level rates of reporting delayed/forgone care in HDHPs vs. traditional plans. PARTICIPANTS: We selected families with children that had at least one member with a chronic condition. Families had employer-sponsored insurance in a Massachusetts health plan and >12 months of enrollment in an HDHP or a traditional plan. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was report of any delayed or forgone care due to cost (acute care, emergency department visits, chronic care, checkups, or tests) for adults or children during the prior 12 months. RESULTS: Respondents included 208 families in HDHPs and 370 in traditional plans. Membership in an HDHP and lower income were each independently associated with higher probability of delayed/forgone care due to cost. For adult family members, the predicted probability of delayed/forgone care due to cost was higher in HDHPs than in traditional plans [40.0% vs 15.1% among families with incomes <400% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and 16.0% vs 4.8% among those with incomes ≥400% FPL]. Similar associations were observed for children. CONCLUSIONS: Among families with chronic conditions, reporting of delayed/forgone care due to cost is higher for both adults and children in HDHPs than in traditional plans. Families with lower incomes are also at higher risk for delayed/forgone care.

Two-year trends in cancer screening among low socioeconomic status women in an HMO-based high-deductible health plan.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening is often fully covered under high-deductible health plans (HDHP), but low socioeconomic status (SES) women still might forego testing. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of switching to a HDHP on breast and cervical cancer screening among women of low SES. DESIGN: Pre-post with comparison group. PARTICIPANTS: Four thousand one hundred and eighty-eight health plan members enrolled for one year before and up to two years after an employer-mandated switch from a traditional HMO to an HMO-based HDHP, compared with 9418 propensity score matched controls who remained in HMOs by employer choice. Both groups had low outpatient copayments. High-deductible members had full coverage of mammography and Pap smears, but $500 to $2000 individual deductibles for most other services. HMO members had full coverage of cancer screening and low copayments for other services without any deductible. We stratified analyses by SES. INTERVENTION: Transition to a HDHP. MAIN MEASURES: Annual breast and cervical cancer screening rates; rates of annual preventive outpatient visits. KEY RESULTS: In follow-up years 1 and 2, low SES HDHP members experienced no statistically detectable changes in rates of breast cancer screening (ratio of change, 1.14, 95 % CI, [0.93,1.40] and 1.05, [0.80,1.37], respectively) or preventive visits (difference-in-differences, +1.9 %, [-11.9 %,+17.7 %] and +10.1 %, [-9.4 %,+33.7 %], respectively) relative to HMO counterparts. Similarly, among low SES HDHP members eligible for cervical cancer screening, no significant changes occurred in either screening rates (1.01, [0.86,1.20] and 1.08, [0.86,1.35]) or preventive visits (+0.2 %, [-11.4 %,+13.3 %] and -1.4 %, [-18.1,+18.6]). Patterns were statistically similar for high SES members. CONCLUSION: During two follow-up years, transition to an HMO-based HDHP with coverage of primary care visits and cancer screening did not lead to differentially lower rates of breast and cervical cancer screening or preventive visits for low SES women. Generalizability is limited to commercially insured women transitioning to HDHPs with low cost-sharing for cancer screening and primary care visits, a common design.

State trends in premiums and deductibles, 2003-2011: eroding protection and rising costs underscore need for action.

Rapidly rising health insurance premiums and higher cost-sharing continue to strain the budgets of U.S. working families and employers. Analysis of state trends in private employer-based health insurance from 2003 to 2011 reveals that premiums for family coverage increased 62 percent across states--rising far faster than income for middle- and low-income families. At the same time, deductibles more than doubled in large and small firms. Workers are thus paying more but getting less-protective benefits. If trends continue at their historical rate, the average premium for family coverage will reach nearly $25,000 by 2020. The Affordable Care Act's reforms should begin to moderate costs while improving coverage. But with private insurance costs projected to increase faster than incomes over the next decade, further efforts are needed. If annual premium growth slowed by one percentage point, by 2020 employers and families would save $2,029 annually for family coverage.

Trend and effects of high-deductible health insurance plans in the health care system: financial access problems in management of cognitive impairment.

BACKGROUND: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are characterized by higher deductibles and lower monthly premiums compared with a typical health plan. HDHPs may reduce, or delay, needed care, which will ultimately lead to poorer access to care for chronically affected participants. OBJECTIVES: To (1) investigate the HDHP enrollment trend and (2) determine the effects of HDHPs on financial access problems for individuals with self-reported cognitive impairment. METHODS: Data between 2010 and 2018 were obtained from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Individuals with cognitive impairment were identified if they were limited by memory difficulties. Problems regarding financial access to health care were assessed based on 6 survey questions from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Multivariable logistic regressions were implemented to evaluate the effects of HDHPs. RESULTS: This study identified 1,148 individuals with cognitive impairment, representing 3.9 million individuals in the United States from 2010 to 2018. A nearly 2-fold increase in HDHP enrollment with cognitive impairment was observed from 2010 (20.9%) to 2018 (41.9%). This increase is similar to that reported for noncognitively impaired individuals. After controlling for possible confounding variables, cognitively impaired individuals with HDPHs were more likely to have overall financial access difficulties compared with those without HDHPs (OR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.88-1.56, P = 0.271), but this likelihood was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: HDHPs are intended to support effective care options and reduce health care costs. However, our research found that among individuals with cognitive impairment, those with HDHPs experienced some financial access problems, such as affording medical care, follow-up care, and specialists, than those without HDHPs, indicating that HDHPs might have unintended consequences for health care usage. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest or financial interests to disclose.

Lung cancer treatment costs, including patient responsibility, by disease stage and treatment modality, 1992 to 2003.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this analysis was to estimate costs for lung cancer care and evaluate trends in the share of treatment costs that are the responsibility of Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data from 1991-2003 for 60,231 patients with lung cancer were used to estimate monthly and patient-liability costs for clinical phases of lung cancer (prediagnosis, staging, initial, continuing, and terminal), stratified by treatment, stage, and non-small- versus small-cell lung cancer. Lung cancer-attributable costs were estimated by subtracting each patient's own prediagnosis costs. Costs were estimated as the sum of Medicare reimbursements (payments from Medicare to the service provider), co-insurance reimbursements, and patient-liability costs (deductibles and "co-payments" that are the patient's responsibility). Costs and patient-liability costs were fit with regression models to compare trends by calendar year, adjusting for age at diagnosis. RESULTS: The monthly treatment costs for a 72-year-old patient, diagnosed with lung cancer in 2000, in the first 6 months ranged from $2687 (no active treatment) to $9360 (chemo-radiotherapy); costs varied by stage at diagnosis and histologic type. Patient liability represented up to 21.6% of care costs and increased over the period 1992-2003 for most stage and treatment categories, even when care costs decreased or remained unchanged. The greatest monthly patient liability was incurred by chemo-radiotherapy patients, which ranged from $1617 to $2004 per month across cancer stages. CONCLUSIONS: Costs for lung cancer care are substantial, and Medicare is paying a smaller proportion of the total cost over time.

Effect of patient reimbursement method on health-care utilization: evidence from China.

For most insurers, traditional methods of controlling health-care demand include deductibles, co-payments, stop-losses, and insurance ceilings. This paper examines the effect of the patient reimbursement method of health insurance (immediate reimbursement or later reimbursement) on individuals' health-care utilization decisions. We find that immediate reimbursement significantly increases the likelihood of patients seeking outpatient treatment in China. We also empirically explore the channels through which immediate reimbursement affects individual's incentives on health-care demand.

State trends in premiums and deductibles, 2003-2010: the need for action to address rising costs.

Rapidly rising health insurance costs continue to strain the budgets of U.S. families and employers. This issue brief analyzes changes in private employer-based health premiums and deductibles for all states from 2003 to 2010, and finds total premiums for family coverage increased 50 percent across states and employee annual share of premiums increased by 63 percent over these seven years. At the same time, per-person deductibles doubled in large, as well as small, firms. If premium trends continue at the rate prior to enactment of the Affordable Care Act, the average premium for family coverage will rise 72 percent by 2020, to nearly $24,000. Health reform offers the potential to reduce insurance cost growth while improving financial protections. If efforts succeed in slowing annual premium growth by 1 percentage point, by 2020 employers and families together would save $2,161 annually for family coverage, compared with projected premiums at historical rates of increase.

State trends in premiums and deductibles, 2003-2009: how building on the Affordable Care Act will help stem the tide of rising costs and eroding benefits.

Rapidly rising health insurance costs have strained U.S. families and employers in recent years. This issue brief examines data for all states on changes in private employer premiums and deductibles for 2003 and 2009. The analysis finds that premiums for businesses and their employees increased 41 percent across states from 2003 to 2009, while per-person deductibles jumped 77 percent in large as well as small firms. If these trends continue at the rate prior to enactment of the Affordable Care Act, the average premium for family coverage will rise 79 percent by 2020, to more than $23,000. The authors describe how health reform offers the potential to reduce insurance cost growth while improving value and protection. If reforms succeed in slowing premium growth by 1 percentage point annually in all states, by 2020 employers and families together will save $2,323 annually for family coverage, compared with projected trends.