Effects of inadequate coverage on healthcare utilization: A regression discontinuity analysis.

ABSTRACT: To examine the impact of inadequate health insurance coverage on physician utilization among older adults using a novel quasi-experimental design in the time period following the elimination of cost sharing for most preventative services under the US Affordable Care Act of 2010.The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey full year consolidated data files for the period 2010 to 2017 were used to construct a pooled cross-sectional dataset of adults aged 60 to 70. Regression discontinuity design was used to estimate the impact of transitioning between non-Medicare and Medicare plans on use of routine office-based physician visits and emergency room visits.For the overall population, gaining access to Medicare at age 65 is associated with a higher propensity to make routine office-based visits (2.94 percentage points [pp]; P < .01) and lower out-of-pocket costs (-23.86 pp; P < .01) Similarly, disenrollment from non-Medicare insurance plans at age 66 was associated with more routine office-based visits (3.01 pp; P < .01) and less out-of-pocket costs (-8.09 pp; P < .10). However, some minority groups reported no changes in visits and out-of-pocket costs or reported an increased propensity to make emergency department visits.Enrollment into Medicare from non-Medicare insurance plans was associated with increased use of routine office-based services and lower out-of-pocket costs. However, some subgroups reported no changes in routine visits or costs or an increased propensity to make emergency department visits. These findings suggest other nonfinancial, structural barriers may exist that limit patient's ability to access routine services.

Out-of-Pocket Spending for Influenza Hospitalizations in Medicare Advantage.

INTRODUCTION: Although many Medicare Advantage plans have waived cost sharing for COVID-19 hospitalizations, these waivers are voluntary and may be temporary. To estimate the magnitude of potential patient cost sharing if waivers are not implemented or are allowed to expire, this study assesses the level and predictors of out-of-pocket spending for influenza hospitalizations in 2018 among elderly Medicare Advantage patients. METHODS: Using the Optum De-Identified Clinformatics DataMart, investigators identified Medicare Advantage patients aged ≥65 years hospitalized for influenza in 2018. For each hospitalization, out-of-pocket spending was calculated by summing deductibles, coinsurance, and copays. The mean out-of-pocket spending and the proportion of hospitalizations with out-of-pocket spending exceeding $2,500 were calculated. A 1-part generalized linear model with a log link and Poisson variance function was fitted to model out-of-pocket spending as a function of patient demographic characteristics, plan type, and hospitalization characteristics. Coefficients were converted to absolute changes in out-of-pocket spending by calculating average marginal effects. RESULTS: Among 14,278 influenza hospitalizations, the mean out-of-pocket spending was $987 (SD=$799). Out-of-pocket spending exceeded $2,500 for 3.0% of hospitalizations. The factors associated with higher out-of-pocket spending included intensive care use, greater length of stay, and enrollment in a preferred provider organization plan (average marginal effect=$634, 95% CI=$631, $636) compared with enrollment in an HMO plan. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of elderly Medicare Advantage patients, the mean out-of-pocket spending for influenza hospitalizations was almost $1,000. Federal policymakers should consider passing legislation mandating insurers to eliminate cost sharing for COVID-19 hospitalizations. Insurers with existing cost-sharing waivers should consider extending them indefinitely, and those without such waivers should consider implementing them immediately.

Trends in Birth Rates After Elimination of Cost Sharing for Contraception by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Importance: Reducing out-of-pocket costs is associated with improved patterns of contraception use. It is unknown whether reducing out-of-pocket costs is associated with fewer births. Objective: To evaluate changes in birth rates by income level among commercially insured women before (2008-2013) and after (2014-2018) the elimination of cost sharing for contraception under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from Clinformatics Data Mart database from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2018, for women aged 15 to 45 years who were enrolled in an employer-based health plan and had pregnancy benefits for at least 1 year. Women without household income information and women with evidence of having undergone a hysterectomy were excluded. Exposure: Section 2713 of the ACA. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of reproductive-aged women with a live birth by year (measured yearly from 2008 to 2018 [11 time points]) within 3 income categories. The secondary outcome was the distribution of contraceptive method fills in 3 categories by year: (1) most effective methods (long-acting reversible contraception or sterilization), (2) moderately effective methods (pill, patch, ring, and injectable), and (3) no prescription or surgical method. Results: The analytic sample included 4 590 989 women (mean [SD] age; 30.8 [9.1] years in 2013; 3 069 053 White [66.9%]) enrolled in 47 721 health plans. A total of 500 898 participants (40.8%) resided in households with incomes less than 400% of the federal poverty level in 2013. In all 3 years (2008, 2013, and 2018), women in the lowest income category were younger than women in the other income groups (median range, 21-22 years vs 30-34 years) and in households with a higher median number of dependents (9-10 vs 2-4). There was an associated decrease in births in all income groups in the period after the elimination of out-of-pocket costs. The estimated probability of birth decreased most precipitously among women in the lowest income group from 8.0% (95% CI, 7.4%-8.5%) in 2014 to 6.2% (95% CI, 5.7%-6.7%) in 2018, representing a 22.2% decrease (P < .001). The estimated probability decreased in the middle income group by 9.4%, from 6.4% (95% CI, 6.3%-6.4%) to 5.8% (95% CI, 5.7%-5.8%) (P < .001), and in the highest income group by 1.8%, from 5.6% (95% CI, 5.6%-5.7%) to 5.5% (95% CI, 5.4%-5.5%) (P < .001) in the period after the elimination of cost sharing. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the elimination of cost sharing for contraception under the ACA was associated with improvements in contraceptive method prescription fills and a decrease in births among commercially insured women. Women with low income had more precipitous decreases than women with higher income, suggesting that enhanced access to contraception may address well-documented income-related disparities in unintended birth rates.

Patient and Plan Spending after State Specialty-Drug Out-of-Pocket Spending Caps.

BACKGROUND: Specialty drugs are used to treat complex or life-threatening conditions, often at high financial costs to both patients and health plans. Three states - Delaware, Louisiana, and Maryland - passed legislation to cap out-of-pocket payments for specialty drugs at $150 per prescription. A concern is that these caps could shift costs to health plans, increasing insurance premiums. Estimates of the effect of the caps on patient and health-plan spending could inform future policies. METHODS: We analyzed a sample that included 27,161 persons under 65 years of age who had rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, hepatitis C, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis and who were in commercial health plans from 2011 through 2016 that were administered by three large nationwide insurers. The primary outcome was the change in out-of-pocket spending among specialty-drug users who were in the 95th percentile for spending on specialty drugs. Other outcomes were changes in mean out-of-pocket and health-plan spending for specialty drugs, nonspecialty drugs, and nondrug health care and utilization of specialty drugs. We compared outcomes in the three states that enacted caps with neighboring control states that did not, 3 years before and up to 3 years after enactment of the spending cap. RESULTS: Caps were associated with an adjusted change in out-of-pocket costs of -$351 (95% confidence interval, -554 to -148) per specialty-drug user per month, representing a 32% reduction in spending, among users in the 95th percentile of spending on specialty drugs. This finding was supported by multiple sensitivity analyses. Caps were not associated with changes in other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Caps for spending on specialty drugs were associated with substantial reductions in spending on specialty drugs among patients with the highest out-of-pocket costs, without detectable increases in health-plan spending, a proxy for future insurance premiums. (Funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Data for Action Program.).

Risk Corridors, COVID-19, And The ACA.

The Supreme Court holds that the government owes insurers the full risk corridors payments due under the Affordable Care Act.

The Economic Burden of Out-of-Pocket Expenses for Plastic Surgery Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Health insurance reimbursement structure has evolved, with patients becoming increasingly responsible for their health care costs through rising out-of-pocket expenses. High levels of cost sharing can lead to delays in access to care, influence treatment decisions, and cause financial distress for patients. METHODS: Patients undergoing the most common outpatient reconstructive plastic surgery operations were identified using Truven MarketScan databases from 2009 to 2017. Total cost of the surgery paid to the insurer and out-of-pocket expenses, including deductible, copayment, and coinsurance, were calculated. Multivariable generalized linear modeling with log link and gamma distribution was used to predict adjusted total and out-of-pocket expenses. All costs were inflation-adjusted to 2017 dollars. RESULTS: The authors evaluated 3,165,913 outpatient plastic and reconstructive surgical procedures between 2009 and 2017. From 2009 to 2017, total costs had a significant increase of 25 percent, and out-of-pocket expenses had a significant increase of 54 percent. Using generalized linear modeling, procedures performed in outpatient hospitals conferred an additional $1999 in total costs (95 percent CI, $1978 to $2020) and $259 in out-of-pocket expenses (95 percent CI, $254 to $264) compared with office procedures. Ambulatory surgical center procedures conferred an additional $1698 in total costs (95 percent CI, $1677 to $1718) and $279 in out-of-pocket expenses (95 percent CI, $273 to $285) compared with office procedures. CONCLUSIONS: For outpatient plastic surgery procedures, out-of-pocket expenses are increasing at a faster rate than total costs, which may have implications for access to care and timing of surgery. Providers should realize the increasing burden of out-of-pocket expenses and the effect of surgical location on patients' costs when possible.

Financial Burden of Prescribed Medicines Included in Outpatient Benefits Package Schemes: Comparative Analysis of Co-Payments for Reimbursable Medicines in European Countries.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to analyse the financial burden that co-payments for prescribed and reimbursed medicines pose on patients in European countries. METHODS: Five medicines used in acute conditions (antibiotic, analgesic) and in chronic care (hypertension, asthma, diabetes) were selected. Co-payments (standard and five defined population groups, e.g. low-income people, patients with high consumption) were surveyed based on information retrieved from national price lists (September 2017) and co-payment regulation in nine countries (Albania, Austria, England, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Kyrgyzstan and Sweden). The financial burden of the selected medicines (originator and lowest-priced generic) was described as the percentage of patients' payments for 1 month's therapy or treatment of one episode in comparison to the national minimum monthly wage. RESULTS: The study showed large variation in co-payments between the countries. Financial burden resulting from co-payments for reimbursed medicines tended to be higher in lower-income countries (Kyrgyzstan: 9% of minimum monthly wage for generic amlodipine; 2-4% for generic and originator salbutamol; Albania: approximately 3% for originator amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and metformin). Most studied countries applied reduction or exemption mechanisms (children were exempt in five countries, no or lower co-payments for low-income people in five countries, exemptions from co-payments upon reaching a threshold of expenses in six countries). CONCLUSIONS: Co-payments for prescribed medicines can pose a substantial financial burden for outpatients, particularly in lower-income countries. The price of a medicine, availability of lower-priced medicines and the design of co-payments, including exemptions and reductions for specific groups, can considerably impact patients' expenses for medicines.

Individual market health plan affordability after cost-sharing reduction subsidy cuts.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how changes in insurer participation and composition as well as state policies affect health plan affordability for individual market enrollees. DATA SOURCES: 2014-2019 Qualified Health Plan Landscape Files augmented with supplementary insurer-level information. STUDY DESIGN: We measured plan affordability for subsidized enrollees using premium spreads, the difference between the benchmark plan and the lowest cost plan, and premium levels for unsubsidized enrollees. We estimated how premium spreads and levels varied with insurer participation, insurer composition, and state policies using log-linear models for 15 222 county-years. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Increased insurer participation reduces premium levels, which is beneficial for unsubsidized enrollees. However, it also reduces premium spreads, leading to lower plan affordability for subsidized enrollees. States responding to cost-sharing reduction subsidy payment cuts by increasing only silver plans' premiums increase premium spreads, particularly when premium increases are restricted to on-Marketplace silver plans. The latter approach also protects unsubsidized, off-Marketplace enrollees from experiencing premium shocks. CONCLUSIONS: Insurer participation and insurer composition affect subsidized and unsubsidized enrollees' health plan affordability in different ways. Decisions by state regulators regarding health plan pricing can significantly affect health plan affordability for each enrollee segment.

The impact of state parity laws on copayments for and adherence to oral endocrine therapy for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to endocrine therapy for breast cancer is often inadequate, in part because of out-of-pocket costs for medication. Numerous states have enacted parity laws to limit patient cost-sharing for oral anticancer drugs. The objective of this study was to estimate the impact of these laws on patient copayments for and adherence to oral endocrine therapy for breast cancer. METHODS: Administrative health insurance claims data from 2007 to 2014 derived from a US health care database were used to identify female patients aged 18 to 64 years with invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast who initiated endocrine therapy and were enrolled in fully insured health plans in states that either enacted parity legislation between 2008 and 2013 or had not yet enacted such legislation by 2015. Differences-in-differences analysis was used to compare copayments for and adherence to endocrine therapy during the 1-year period before and after each year of legislation enactment. RESULTS: In total, 6900 individuals who received 7778 unique drug therapy courses were identified. Parity legislation was associated with significant decreases in the 25th percentile of copayments for anastrozole of $4.39 (95% confidence interval [CI], -$4.52 to -$4.26; P < .001) and for exemestane of $3.08 (95% CI, -$4.80 to -$1.35; P < .001). The median copayment for exemestane decreased by $10.25 (95% CI, -$12.61 to -$7.89; P < .001). A higher median monthly copayment was significantly associated with a greater risk of medication nonadherence (adjusted risk ratio, 1.006 per dollar increase; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Parity laws had a modest effect on lowering the cost of anastrozole and exemestane, but more focused efforts to limit out-of-pocket costs for endocrine therapy may have a greater impact on medication adherence.

Paying for Drugs After the Medicare Part D Beneficiary Reaches the Catastrophic Limit: Lessons on Cost Sharing from Other US Policy Partnerships Between Government and Commercial Industry.

In 2018, the Medicare Part D catastrophic threshold is $5000 in out-of-pocket total drug spending incurred by the beneficiary. Above this, Medicare pays 80%, prescription drug plans (PDPs) pay 15%, and beneficiaries pay a 5% copay. However, recent growth in catastrophic spending is caused by expensive specialty drugs. The 5% copay, on top of out-of-pocket spending, could result in beneficiaries not accessing specialty drugs. To assist beneficiaries, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) proposes to eliminate beneficiary catastrophic cost sharing, while PDPs pay 80% and Medicare pays 20%. Our objective was to assess other government cost-sharing approaches and consider how they would affect pharmaceutical access, PDP Part D incentives, and pharmaceutical innovation. We reviewed published literature and government reports on cost sharing between US government divisions or between government and private commercial entities. We discussed their cost-sharing applicability to Part D. We found that the US government has utilized numerous cost-sharing approaches to enhance public-private partnerships. We reviewed four cost-sharing arrangements and their applicability to Medicare: the Byrd-Bond Amendment to the Clean Air Act-Medicare bulk purchases drugs costing $8000 + ; North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-cost sharing based on high-risk markets; the Ryan White Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act-grants to PDPs in high-risk markets and grants to beneficiaries who cannot afford drugs; and the Department of Veterans Affairs-drug price negotiation for expensive drugs. In conclusion, a variety of federal cost-sharing approaches provide precedent for altering PDP cost sharing. The government tends to prefer options that have been tried elsewhere.