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.

Federal Out-of-Network Balance Billing Legislation: Context and Implications for Radiology Practices.

Out-of-network (OON) balance billing, commonly known as surprise billing but better described as a surprise gap in health insurance coverage, occurs when an individual with private health insurance (vs a public insurer such as Medicare) is administered unanticipated care from a physician who is not in their health plan's network. Such unexpected OON care may result in substantial out-of-pocket costs for patients. Although ending surprise billing is patient centric, patient protective, and noncontroversial, passing federal legislation was challenging given its ability to disrupt insurer-physician good-faith negotiations and thus impact in-network rates. Like past proposals, the recently passed No Surprises Act takes patients out of the middle of insurer-physician OON reimbursement disputes, limiting patients' expense to standard in-network cost-sharing amounts. The new law, based on arbitration, attempts to protect good-faith negotiations between physicians and insurance companies and encourages network contracting. Radiology practices, even those that are fully in network or that never practiced surprise billing, could nonetheless be affected. Ongoing rulemaking processes will have meaningful roles in determining how the law is made operational. Physician and stakeholder advocacy has been and will continue to be crucial to the ongoing evolution of this process. © RSNA, 2021.

Non-warfarin oral anticoagulant copayments and adherence in atrial fibrillation: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with atrial fibrillation, incomplete adherence to anticoagulants increases risk of stroke. Non-warfarin oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are expensive; we evaluated whether higher copayments are associated with lower NOAC adherence. METHODS: Using a national claims database of commercially-insured patients, we performed a cohort study of patients with atrial fibrillation who newly initiated a NOAC from 2012 to 2018. Patients were stratified into low (<$35), medium ($35-$59), or high (≥$60) copayments and propensity-score weighted based on demographics, insurance characteristics, comorbidities, prior health care utilization, calendar year, and the NOAC received. Follow-up was 1 year, with censoring for switching to a different anticoagulant, undergoing an ablation procedure, disenrolling from the insurance plan, or death. The primary outcome was adherence, measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Secondary outcomes included NOAC discontinuation (no refill for 30 days after the end of NOAC supply) and switching anticoagulants. We compared PDC using a Kruskal-Wallis test and rates of discontinuation and switching using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: After weighting patients across the 3 copayment groups, the effective sample size was 17,558 patients, with balance across 50 clinical and demographic covariates (standardized differences <0.1). Mean age was 62 years, 29% of patients were female, and apixaban (43%), and rivaroxaban (38%) were the most common NOACs. Higher copayments were associated with lower adherence (P < .001), with a PDC of 0.82 (Interquartile range [IQR] 0.36-0.98) among those with high copayments, 0.85 (IQR 0.41-0.98) among those with medium copayments, and 0.88 (IQR 0.41-0.99) among those with low copayments. Compared to patients with low copayments, patients with high copayments had higher rates of discontinuation (hazard ratio [HR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.19; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among atrial fibrillation patients newly initiating NOACs, higher copayments in commercial insurance were associated with lower adherence and higher rates of discontinuation in the first year. Policies to lower or limit cost-sharing of important medications may lead to improved adherence and better outcomes among patients receiving NOACs.

Is Insurance a Barrier to HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis? Clarifying the Issue.

Clinical trials have demonstrated that preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) protects against HIV infection; yet, even with its approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2012, less than 10% of eligible users in the United States are currently taking PrEP.While there are multiple factors that influence PrEP uptake and pose barriers to PrEP implementation, here we focus on PrEP's cost in the United States, which, at the current list price of $2000 per month and with high levels of cost sharing, can leave insured users with more than $1000 in out-of-pocket costs every year. We discuss how patient deductibles, monthly premiums, copayments, and coinsurance vary widely and may increase the financial burden. Although drug payment-assistance programs have made PrEP more affordable to uninsured and underinsured users, lack of insurance is a barrier to PrEP accessibility. The FDA approved a generic version in 2017; however, that version has not been distributed to US consumers and may not be more affordable.As other countries begin implementing PrEP programs, the extent of PrEP's availability as a tool in the global fight against HIV remains to be seen.

Exploring factors that influence positive WOM in the health insurance industry.

Health insurance companies have an interest in understanding what factors may lead to positive word-of-mouth (WOM) from consumers. This research identifies factors that influence positive WOM about health insurance firms. Using data collected from 425 insurance policy holders, we find influential factors vary depending on the purchase source. Significant factors identified in the study that influence positive word-of-mouth include service quality, plan satisfaction, and plan type (individual vs. family). Further, claim count, preferred information source, and deductible levels also affect the spread of positive WOM differently among purchase sources. The study concludes with a discussion of implications and future research.

Attitudes About Consumer Strategies Among Americans in High-deductible Health Plans.

BACKGROUND: More than 70 million Americans are enrolled in a high-deductible health plan (HDHP), with high upfront cost-sharing to encourage strategies such as price shopping to mitigate out-of-pocket spending. Recent research suggests HDHP enrollees are reluctant to engage in these consumer strategies, but there is little information on why. OBJECTIVES: To describe associations between HDHP enrollees' attitudes about and intent to engage in consumer strategies. RESEARCH DESIGN: We conducted a nationally representative web survey of 1637 HDHP enrollees that included 2 hypothetical scenarios amenable to consumer strategies. For each scenario, we asked participants whether they would compare price or quality information, discuss cost with a provider, or try to negotiate a service price. We measured participants' ratings of the difficulty of each strategy, its effectiveness at reducing cost or increasing the likelihood of getting care, and how likely participants would be to actually engage in each strategy. RESULTS: Fewer than half of HDHP enrollees intended to engage in any of the surveyed strategies. Enrollees who viewed a consumer strategy as helpful were more likely to engage in that strategy; no associations were found with perceived difficulty of a strategy and intent to engage in it. CONCLUSIONS: HDHP enrollees may not pursue consumer strategies because they believe they are not helpful for getting care or lowering costs. Providers and payers should ensure these strategies are actually helpful to HDHP enrollees and that enrollees understand how they could use these strategies to reduce their out-of-pocket costs.

Total and out-of-pocket costs of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Communicating healthcare costs to patients is an important component of delivering high-quality value-based care, yet cost data are lacking. This is especially relevant for ovarian cancer, where no clinical consensus on optimal first-line treatment exists. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to generate cost estimates of different primary management strategies in ovarian cancer. STUDY DESIGN: All women who underwent treatment for ovarian cancer from 2006-2015 were identified from the MarketScan database (n=12,761) in this observational cohort study. Total and out-of-pocket costs were calculated with the use of all claims within 8 months from initial treatment and normalized to 2017 US dollars. The generalized linear model method was used to assess cost by strategy. RESULTS: Among patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and those who underwent primary debulking, mean adjusted total costs were $113,660 and $107,153 (P<.001) and mean out-of-pocket costs were $2519 and $2977 (P<.001), respectively. Total costs for patients who had intravenous standard, intravenous dose-dense, and intraperitoneal/intravenous chemotherapy were $105,047, $115,099, and $121,761 (P<.001); and out-of-pocket costs were $2838, $3405, and $2888 (P<.001), respectively. Total costs for regimens that included bevacizumab were higher than those without it ($171,468 vs $104,482; P<.001); out-of-pocket costs were $3127 vs $2898 (P<.001). Among patients who did not receive bevacizumab, 25% paid ≥$3875, and 10% paid ≥$6265. For patients who received bevacizumab, 25% paid ≥$4480, and 10% paid ≥$6635. Among patients enrolled in high-deductible health plans, median out-of-pocket costs were $4196, with 25% paying ≥$6680 and 10% paying ≥$9751. CONCLUSION: Costs vary across different treatment strategies, and patients bear a significant out-of-pocket burden, especially those enrolled in high-deductible health plans.

Cancer History, Health Insurance Coverage, and Cost-Related Medication Nonadherence and Medication Cost-Coping Strategies in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationship between cancer history and cost-related medication nonadherence (CRN) as well as cost-coping strategies, by health insurance coverage. METHODS: We used the 2013 to 2016 National Health Interview Survey to identify adults aged 18 to 64 years with (n = 3599) and without (n = 56 909) a cancer history. Cost-related changes in medication use included (1) CRN, measured as skipping, taking less, or delaying medication because of cost, and (2) cost-coping strategies, measured as requesting lower cost medication or using alternative therapies to save money. Separate multivariable logistic regressions were used to calculate the adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of CRN and cost-coping strategies associated with cancer history, stratified by insurance. RESULTS: Cancer survivors were more likely than adults without a cancer history to report CRN (AOR 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.43) and cost-coping strategies (AOR 1.10; 95% CI 0.99-1.19). Among the privately insured, the difference in CRN by cancer history was the greatest among those enrolled in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) without health savings accounts (HSAs) (AOR 1.78; 95% CI 1.30-2.44). Among adults with HDHP and HSA, cancer survivors were less likely to report cost-coping strategies (AOR 0.62; 95% CI 0.42-0.90). Regardless of cancer history, CRN and cost-coping strategies were the highest for those uninsured, enrolled in HDHP without HSA, and without prescription drug coverage under their health plan (all P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survivors are prone to CRN and more likely to use cost-coping strategies. Expanding options for health insurance coverage, use of HSAs for those with HDHP, and enhanced prescription drug coverage may effectively address CRN.

Can income-based co-payment rates improve disparity? The case of the choice between brand-name and generic drugs.

BACKGROUND: Higher income population tend to prefer brand-name to generic drugs, which may cause disparity in access to brand-name drugs among income groups. A potential policy that can resolve such disparity is imposing a greater co-payment rate on high-income enrollees. However, the effects of such policy are unknown. We examined how patients' choice between brand-name and generic drugs are affected by the unique income-based co-payment rates in Japan; 10% for general enrollees and 30% for those with high income among the elderly aged 75 and over. METHODS: We drew on cross-sectional price variation among commonly prescribed 311 drugs using health insurance claims data from a large prefecture in Japan between October 2013 and September 2014 to identify between-income-group differences in responses to differentiated payments. RESULTS: Running 311 multivariate logistic regression models controlling individual demographics, the median estimate indicated that high-income group was 3% (odds ratio = 0.97) less likely to choose a generic drug than the general-income group and the interquartile estimates ranged 0.92-1.02. The multivariate feasible generalized least squares model indicated high-income group's higher likelihood to choose brand-name drugs than the general-income group without co-payment rate differentiation (p < 0.001). Such gap in the likelihood was attenuated by 0.4% (p = 0.027) with an US$1 increase in the difference in additional payment/month for brand-name drugs between income groups - no gap with US$10 additional payment/month. This attenuation was observed in drugs for chronic diseases only, not for acute diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Income-based co-payment rates appeared to reduce disparity in access to brand-name drugs across income groups, in addition to reducing total medical expenditure among high-income group who shifted from brand-name drugs to generic ones due to larger drug price differences.

The effect of cost-sharing design characteristics on use of health care recommended by the treating physician; a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Cost-sharing programs are often too complex to be easily understood by the average insured individual. Consequently, it is often difficult to determine the amount of expenses in advance. This may preclude well-informed decisions of insured individuals to adhere to medical treatment advised by the treating physician. Preliminary research has showed that the uncertainty in these cost-sharing payments are affected by four design characteristics, i.e. 1) type of payments (copayments, coinsurances or deductibles), 2) rate of payments, 3) annual caps on cost-sharing and 4) moment that these payments must be made (directly at point of care or billed afterwards by the insurer). METHODS: An online discrete choice experiment was used to assess the extent to which design characteristics of cost-sharing programs affect the decision of individuals to adhere to recommended care (prescribed medications, ordered diagnostic tests and referrals to medical specialist care). Analyses were performed using mixed multinomial logits. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 7921 members of a patient organization. Analyses showed that 1) cost-sharing programs that offer clear information in advance on actual expenses that are billed afterwards, stimulate adherence to care recommended by the treating physician; 2) the relative importance of the design characteristics differed between respondents who reported to have forgone health care due to cost-sharing and those who did not; 3) price-awareness among respondents was limited; 4) the utility derived from attributes and respondents' characteristics were positively correlated; 5) an optimized cost-sharing program revealed an adherence of more than 72.9% among those who reported to have forgone health care. CONCLUSIONS: The analyses revealed that less complex cost-sharing programs stimulate adherence to recommended care. If these programs are redesigned accordingly, individuals who had reported to have forgone a health service recommended by their treating physician due to cost-sharing, would be more likely to use this service. Such redesigned programs provide a policy option to reduce adverse health effects of cost-sharing in these groups. Considering the upcoming shift from volume-based to value-based health care provision, insights into the characteristics of a cost-sharing program that stimulates the use of recommended care may help to design value-based insurance plans.

Altarum's MESA Turns High-Deductible Coverage on its Head.

The architects of Medical Episode Spending Allowance (MESA) benefits are radically reframing coverage as allowances for episodes of care and have a plan for engaging members in making better choices. MESA could catch on quickly, particularly with plan sponsors who have seen consumer-directed plan designs work against them.

Backlash Against Copay Accumulators.

With accumulators, the value of any copay assistance cards or coupons does not count toward out-of-pocket medicine costs that are applied toward deductibles. It's a cost-shifting tool that's facing pushback from patients, providers, and others saying that accumulators will hurt public health.

Small Changes or Big Ones? The Case of Limits on Prescription Drug Copayments in California.

Despite standardization, advocates for various industries and certain patient needs continue to propose changes in coverage rules. Much of the advocacy is occurring at the state level with a focus on pharmaceutical coverage, such as equalizing cost sharing between oral and infused oncology drugs or setting limits on cost sharing for prescriptions.

Chronic Health Outcomes and Prescription Drug Copayments in Medicaid.

BACKGROUND: Prescription drug copayments and cost-sharing have been linked to reductions in prescription drug use and expenditures. However, little is known about their effect on specific health outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between prescription drug copayments and uncontrolled hypertension, uncontrolled hypercholesterolemia, and prescription drug utilization among Medicaid beneficiaries with these conditions. SUBJECTS: Select adults aged 20-64 from NHANES 1999-2012 in 18 states. MEASURES: Uncontrolled hypertension, uncontrolled hypercholesterolemia, and taking medication for each of these conditions. RESEARCH DESIGN: A differencing regression model was used to evaluate health outcomes among Medicaid beneficiaries in 4 states that introduced copayments during the study period, relative to 2 comparison groups-Medicaid beneficiaries in 14 states unaffected by shifts in copayment policy, and a within-state counterfactual group of low-income adults not on Medicaid, while controlling for individual demographic factors and unobserved state-level characteristics. RESULTS: Although uncontrolled hypertension and hypercholesterolemia declined among all low-income persons during the study period, the trend was less pronounced in Medicaid beneficiaries affected by copayments. After netting out concurrent trends in health outcomes of low-income persons unaffected by Medicaid copayment changes, we estimated that introduction of drug copayments in Medicaid was associated with an average rise in uncontrolled hypertension and uncontrolled hypercholesterolemia of 7.7 and 13.2 percentage points, respectively, and with reduced drug utilization for hypercholesterolemia. CONCLUSIONS: As Medicaid programs change in the years following the Affordable Care Act, prescription drug copayments may play a role as a lever for controlling hypertension and hypercholesterolemia at the population level.

An Econometric Model of Healthcare Demand With Nonlinear Pricing.

From 2004 to 2012, the German social health insurance levied a co-payment for the first doctor visit in a calendar quarter. We develop a new model for estimating the effect of such a co-payment on the individual number of visits per quarter. The model combines a one-time increase in the otherwise constant hazard rate determining the timing of doctor visits with a difference-in-differences strategy to identify the reform effect. An extended version of the model accounts for a mismatch between reporting period and calendar quarter. Using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel, we do not find an effect of the co-payment on demand for doctor visits. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Expanding co-payment for methadone maintenance services in Vietnam: the importance of addressing health and socioeconomic inequalities.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring high enrollment while mobilizing resources through co-payment services is critical to the success of the methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) program in Vietnam. This study assessed the willingness of patients to pay (WTP) for different MMT services delivery models and determined its associated factors. METHODS: A facility based survey was conducted among 1016 MMT patients (98.7% male, 42% aged 35 or less, and 67% living with spouse) in five MMT clinics in Hanoi and Nam Dinh province in 2013. Socioeconomic, HIV and health status, history of drug use and rehabilitation, and MMT experience were interviewed. WTP was assessed using contingent valuation method, including a set of double-bounded binary questions and a follow-up open-ended question. Point and interval data models were used to estimate maximum willingness to pay. RESULTS: 95.5% patients were willing to pay for MMT at the monthly mean price of US$ 32 (95%CI = 28-35). Higher WTP was associated with higher level of educational attainment, higher income, male sex, and had high expenses on opiates prior to MMT. Patients who reported having any problem in Pain/ Discomfort, and who did not have outpatient care last year were willing to pay less for MMT than others. CONCLUSION: High level of WTP supports the co-payment policies as a strategy to mobilize resources for the MMT program in Vietnam. However, it is necessary to ensure equalities across patient groups by acknowledging socioeconomic status of different settings and providing financial supports for disadvantaged patients with severe health status.

The effect of increasing the coinsurance rate on outpatient utilization of healthcare services in South Korea.

BACKGROUND: The Korean healthcare system is composed of costly and inefficient structures that fail to adequately divide the functions and roles of medical care organizations. To resolve this matter, the government reformed the cost-sharing policy in November of 2011 for the management of outpatients visiting general or tertiary hospitals with comparatively mild diseases. The purpose of the present study was to examine the impact of increasing the coinsurance rate of prescription drug costs for 52 mild diseases at general or tertiary hospitals on outpatient healthcare service utilization. METHODS: The present study used health insurance claim data collected from 2010 to 2013. The study population consisted of 505,691 outpatients and was defined as those aged 20-64 years who had visited medical care organizations for the treatment of 52 diseases both before and after the program began. To examine the effect of the cost-sharing policy on outpatient healthcare service utilization (percentage of general or tertiary hospital utilization, number of outpatient visits, and outpatient medical costs), a segmented regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: After the policy to increase the coinsurance rate on prescription drug costs was implemented, the number of outpatient visits at general or tertiary hospitals decreased (ß = -0.0114, p < 0.0001); however, the number increased at hospitals and clinics (ß = 0.0580, p < 0.0001). Eventually, the number of outpatient visits to hospitals and clinics began to decrease after policy initiation (ß = -0.0018, p < 0.0001). Outpatient medical costs decreased for both medical care organizations (general or tertiary hospitals: ß = -2913.4, P < 0.0001; hospitals or clinics: ß = -591.35, p < 0.0001), and this decreasing trend continued with time. CONCLUSIONS: It is not clear that decreased utilization of general or tertiary hospitals has transferred to that of clinics or hospitals due to the increased cost-sharing policy of prescription drug costs. This result indicates the cost-sharing policy, intended to change patient behaviors for healthcare service utilization, has had limited effects on rebuilding the healthcare system and the function of medical care organizations.

Stabilizing individual health insurance markets with subsidized reinsurance.

Subsidized reinsurance represents a potentially important tool to help stabilize individual health insurance markets. This brief describes alternative forms of subsidized reinsurance and the mechanisms by which they spread risk and reduce premiums. It summarizes specific state initiatives and Congressional proposals that include subsidized reinsurance. It compares approaches to each other and to more direct subsidies of individual market enrollment. For a given amount of funding, a particular program's efficacy will depend on how it affects insurers' risk and the risk margins built into premiums, incentives for selecting or avoiding risks, incentives for coordinating and managing care, and the costs and complexity of administration. These effects warrant careful consideration by policymakers as they consider measures to achieve stability in the individual market in the long term.

Extension of Pharmacy Copayments for Medications. Resolution of interim final rule.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) notifies the public that an interim final rule freezing medication copayments for veterans in priority groups 2 through 8, published on December 7, 2016, was superseded by a final rule amending its regulations concerning copayments that published on December 12, 2016. The interim final rule received no public comments.