Health Outcome Changes in Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes After a State-Level Insulin Copayment Cap.

Importance: Many insulin users ration doses due to high out-of-pocket costs. Starting January 2020 with Colorado, 25 states and the District of Columbia enacted laws that cap insulin copayments. Objective: To estimate the association of Colorado's $100 copayment cap with out-of-pocket spending, medication adherence, and health care services utilization for diabetes-related complications. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study using Colorado's All-Payer Claims Database, nonelderly insulin users with type 1 diabetes were analyzed from January 2019 to December 2020. Outcome changes were compared in the prepolicy and postpolicy period among individuals continuously enrolled in state-regulated and non-state-regulated plans using difference-in-differences regressions. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on individuals' prepolicy spending (low: never ≥$100 out-of-pocket vs high: ≥$100 out-of-pocket cost at least once). Data were analyzed from June 2023 to May 2024. Exposure: Enrollment in state-regulated health insurance plans subject to the copayment cap legislation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adherence to basal and bolus insulin treatment was evaluated using the proportion of days covered measure, out-of-pocket spending reflected prescription cost for a 30-day supply, and health care utilization for diabetes-related complications was identified using primary diagnosis codes from medical claims data. Results: The panel included 1629 individuals with type 1 diabetes (39 096 person-months), of which 924 were male (56.7%), 540 (33.1%) had 1 or more comorbidities, and the mean (SD) age was 40.6 (15.9) years. Overall, the copayment cap was associated with out-of-pocket spending declines of $17.3 (95% CI, -$27.3 to -$7.3) for basal and $11.5 (95% CI, -$24.7 to $1.7) for bolus insulins and increases in adherence of 3.2 (95% CI, 0.0 to 6.5) percentage points for basal and 3.3 (95% CI, 0.3 to 6.4) percentage points for bolus insulins. Changes in adherence were associated with increases within the prepolicy high-spending group (basal, 9.9; 95% CI, 2.4 to 17.4 percentage points; bolus, 13.0; 95% CI, 5.1 to 20.9 percentage points). The policy was also associated with a mean reduction of -0.09 (95% CI, -0.16 to -0.02) medical claims for diabetes-related complications per person per month among high spenders, a 30% decrease. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of Colorado's insulin copayment cap among individuals with type 1 diabetes, the policy was associated with an overall decline in out-of-pocket spending, an increase in medication adherence, and a decline in claims for diabetes-related complications only among insulin users who spent more than $100 in the prepolicy period at least once.

Deductible double jeopardy: patients may pay more out of pocket when pregnancy crosses 2 years.

OBJECTIVES: This study explores the concern that annual high-deductible commercial insurance plan design may yield higher out-of-pocket costs when an episode of maternity care spans 2 years, exposing patients to their cost-sharing limits twice during their episode of care. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of Health Care Cost Institute commercial claims. METHODS: The study sample comprises 1,379,300 deliveries among high-deductible health plan enrollees in years 2012 through 2021. Patients' mean cost sharing is calculated across all service types for 3 time periods: (1) delivery hospitalization, (2) maternity episode from 40 weeks prior to delivery hospitalization through 12 weeks after discharge, and (3) extended period spanning 3 years from January of the year before delivery through December of the year after delivery. RESULTS: For each of the 3 episode measurements, mean out-of-pocket spending is highest among those who deliver in January and declines in each subsequent month until August and September (the delivery months with most pregnancy and postpartum periods within the same year), then flattens for the remainder of the year. Mean cost sharing for the maternity episode was $6308 in January and $4998 in December, a difference of $1310. Patients delivering in January also had mean out-of-pocket costs $1491 greater for delivery hospitalization and $1005 greater over the 3-year period than patients delivering in December. CONCLUSIONS: Higher out-of-pocket spending is observed when patients face their cost-sharing limits twice within an episode of maternity care, and this difference persists even when evaluating 3 calendar years of patients' out-of-pocket spending.

Trends and postoperative outcomes of thyroidectomy after expansion and rise of health insurance deductibles in the fiscal year.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to evaluate a relationship between expansion of High Deductible Health Plans (HDHPs) and the number of thyroid surgery cases with associated postoperative outcomes in the fiscal year. METHODS: Data from TriNetX was used to evaluate the trends in thyroid surgery from 2005 and 2021 between the end of the year (Quarter 4) and the beginning of the year (Quarter 1). Risk of postoperative outcomes were statistically interrogated. RESULTS: The average rate of thyroid surgery in cases/year between Quarter 4 and Quarter 1 was similar after expansion of HDHPs (152; 146; p = 0.64). There was no increased risk of postoperative complications. The rate of surgery decreased significantly for patients with Medicare after implementation of the revised American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines (Quarter 4: p = 0.03; Quarter 1: p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Patients are less likely to delay thyroid surgery at the end of the year despite higher deductibles.

Association of copayments with healthcare utilization and expenditures among Medicaid enrollees with a substance use disorder.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the association between copayments and healthcare utilization and expenditures among Medicaid enrollees with substance use disorders. METHODS: This study used claims data (2020-2021) from a private insurer participating in Arkansas's Medicaid expansion. We compared service utilization and expenditures for enrollees in different Medicaid program structures with varying copayments. Enrollees with incomes above 100 % FPL (N = 10,240) had copayments for substance use treatment services while enrollees below 100 % FPL (N = 2478) did not. Demographic, diagnostic, utilization, and cost information came from claims and enrollment information. The study identified substance use and clinical comorbidities using claims from July through December 2020 and evaluated utilization and costs in 2021. Generalized linear models (GLM) estimated outcomes using single equation and two-part modeling. A gamma distribution and log link were used to model expenditures, and negative binomial models were used to model utilization. A falsification test comparing behavioral health telemedicine utilization, which had no cost sharing in either group, assessed whether differences in the groups may be responsible for observed findings. RESULTS: Substance use enrollees with copayments were less likely to have a substance use or behavioral health outpatient (-0.04 PP adjusted; p = 0.001) or inpatient visit (-0.04 PP; p = 0.001) relative to their counterparts without copayments, equal to a 17 % reduction in substance use or behavioral health outpatient services and a nearly 50 % reduction in inpatient visits. The reduced utilization among enrollees with a copayment was associated with a significant reduction in total expenses ($954; p = 0.001) and expenses related to substance use or behavioral health services ($532; p = 0.001). For enrollees with at least one behavioral health visit, there were no differences in outpatient or inpatient utilization or expenditures between enrollees with and without copayments. Copayments had no association with non-behavioral health or telemedicine services where neither group had cost sharing. CONCLUSION: Copayments serve as an initial barrier to substance use treatment, but are not associated with the amount of healthcare utilization conditional on using services. Policy makers and insurers should consider the role of copayments for treatment services among enrollees with substance use disorders in Medicaid programs.

Do high-deductible health plans affect price paid for childbirth?

OBJECTIVE: To test whether out-of-pocket costs and negotiated hospital prices for childbirth change after enrollment in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) and whether price effects differ in markets with more hospitals. DATA SOURCES: Administrative medical claims data from 2010 to 2014 from three large commercial insurers with plans in all U.S. states provided by the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI). STUDY DESIGN: I identify employer groups that switched from non-HDHPs in 1 year to HDHPs in a subsequent year. I estimate enrollees' change in out-of-pocket costs and negotiated hospital prices for childbirth after HDHP switch, relative to a comparison group of employers that do not switch plans. I use a triple-difference design to estimate price changes for enrollees in markets with more hospital choices. Finally, I re-estimate models with hospital-fixed effects. DATA COLLECTION: From the HCCI sample, childbearing women enrolled in an employer-sponsored plan with at least 10 people. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Switching to an HDHP increases out-of-pocket cost $227 (p < 0.001; comparison group base $790) and has no meaningful effect on hospital-negotiated prices (-$26, p = 0.756; comparison group base $5821). HDHP switch is associated with a marginally statistically significant price increase in markets with three or fewer hospitals ($343, p = 0.096; comparison group base $5806) and, relative to those markets, with a price decrease in markets with more than three hospitals (-$512; p = 0.028). Predicted prices decrease from $5702 to $5551 after HDHP switch in markets with more than three hospitals due primarily to lower prices conditional on using the same hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Prices for childbirth in markets with more hospitals decrease after HDHP switch due to lower hospital prices for HDHPs relative to prices at those same hospitals for non-HDHPs. These results reinforce previous findings that HDHPs do not promote price shopping but suggest negotiated prices may be lower for HDHP enrollees.

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.

Financial Burden of Discarded Weight-based Antineoplastic Drugs to Payers and Patients in the Private Insurance Market.

Background: Our study estimated insurance payments and patient out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses associated with discarded weight-based intravenous antineoplastic drugs for privately insured US adult patients with cancer. Methods: We identified patients who received weight-based antineoplastic drugs from a 2017 MarketScan health risk assessment (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) linked to claims data. Using weight information in the health risk assessment, we derived the recommended dose and calculated the percentage of drugs discarded. We applied ß-regression to determine factors associated with the discarded percentages. To compare patients with and without high-deductible plans, we employed a generalized linear model and a 2-part model to examine insurance payment and OOP expense, respectively. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results: Of 27 350 claims for 58 weight-based antineoplastic drugs from 1970 patients, the median discarded percentage was 9.8% (mean [SD] = 12.8% [10.5%]). Aside from drug and tumor type, statistically significantly higher discarded percentages were found for patients in the lowest weight group (5.5% [95% confidence interval = 4.7% to 6.4%]; P < .001; weight <150 lb [68.0 kg] vs ≥200 lb [90.7 kg]). Private payers spent $5090 per patient in 2017 on discarded weight-based antineoplastic drugs, and patients' mean OOP expense on discarded drugs was $63. In total, 39.7% of patients had high-deductible plans. The adjusted mean OOP expense for discarded drugs was statistically significantly higher for those in high-deductible plans ($95 vs $47; P < .001). Conclusions: Private insurers incurred substantial financial burden from discarded weight-based antineoplastic drugs. Although the OOP expenses of discarded drugs were modest for most privately insured patients with cancer, approximately 5% spent more than $400 on the discarded drugs. Policies designed to reduce drug waste from single-dose, weight-based antineoplastic drugs should evaluate their financial consequences for payers and patients.

Health Insurance Deductibles and Health Care-Seeking Behaviors in a Consumer-Driven Health Care System With Universal Coverage.

Importance: Characteristics of a health care system can facilitate forgoing of health care owing to economic reasons and can influence population health. Whether health insurance deductibles are associated with forgoing of health care in a consumer-driven health care system with universal coverage, such as the Swiss health system, remains to be determined. Objective: To assess the association between insurance plan deductibles and forgoing of health care with consideration of socioeconomic factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted in Geneva, Switzerland, using data collected from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2019. Population-based samples were obtained yearly through random stratified sampling by age and sex of the general population aged 20 to 74 years. Participants were invited to an appointment at 1 of the 3 study sites in Geneva, where they completed a sociodemographic and health questionnaire. Exposures: Insurance plan deductible level. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was forgoing of health care owing to economic reasons. Unadjusted and multivariable Poisson models were used to assess the association between deductible level and forgoing of health care. Differences in forgoing health care across the range of health insurance deductibles or household income levels were quantified using the relative index of inequality (RII). Results: The study group included 11 872 participants (5974 [50.3%] male; median age, 48.1 years [interquartile range, 38.7-59.1 years]); 1146 (9.7%) reported forgoing health care. Participants with high-deductible plans reported forgoing health care more frequently than those with low-deductible plans (331 [13.5%] vs 591 [8.7%]). In adjusted analysis, higher-deductible plans were associated with a greater likelihood of forgoing health care (RII, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.7-3.0; P < .001) independently of socioeconomic status, known comorbidities, and cardiovascular risk factors. Deductible level was associated with forgoing of health care among participants younger than 40 years (RII, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.6-4.0; P < .001) and those aged 40 to 64 years (RII, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-2.9; P = .002) but not among those older than 65 years (RII, 2.9; 95% CI, 0.8-10.4; P = .11). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, high insurance plan deductibles were associated with forgoing of health care independent of socioeconomic status and preexisting conditions in a universal consumer-driven health care system with good population outcomes in Switzerland. Uncovering health care system design features that could lead to suboptimal population care may help decision makers improve their current health care system design to achieve better outcomes.

Association of Branded Prescription Drug Rebate Size and Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs in a Nationally Representative Sample, 2007-2018.

Importance: Over the past decade, branded prescription drug manufacturers have substantially increased list prices while offering larger rebate payments to health care insurers. Whereas larger rebates can partially offset increases in list prices for insurers, patient out-of-pocket costs may be directly associated with list prices for individuals without insurance and indirectly associated with list prices for individuals with insurance through deductibles or coinsurance. Objective: To investigate the association between rebates and patient out-of-pocket costs and whether this association differs by coverage type (ie, Medicare, commercial, or uninsured) and before and after 2014. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) combined with pricing data for single-source branded drugs from SSR Health from 2007 through 2018. The study was conducted among a nationally representative sample of the noninstitutionalized civilian US population. Included individuals were respondents to MEPS with at least 1 prescription for a single-source branded drug who were covered by Medicare or commercial insurance or were uninsured during an entire year. Data analyses were conducted from August 2019 through March 2021. Exposures: Estimated rebate size. Main Outcomes and Measures: Out-of-pocket costs per prescription were calculated, adjusting for year and drug. Results: Among 38 131 individuals with at least 1 prescription, the mean age was 54 years (95% CI, 54 to 55 years), with 22 044 women (57.8%) and 29 086 White individuals (76.3%). The sample included 444 unique drugs with a survey-weighted total of 4.7 billion prescriptions. Estimated mean (SE) rebates increased from $34 ($1) per prescription in 2007 to $374 ($9) per prescription in 2018. The rebate sizes were associated with statistically significant mean out-of-pocket increases per branded prescription of $4 (95% CI, $4 to $4) from 2007 to 2013 and $11 (95% CI, $10 to $12) from 2014 to 2018. From 2014 to 2018, rebate sizes were associated with statistically significant mean increases in out-of-pocket costs per prescription of $13 (95% CI, $12 to $13) for individuals with Medicare, $6 (95% CI, $6 to $7) for individuals with commercial insurance, and $39 (95% CI, $34 to $44) for individuals without insurance. After adjusting for list prices, there was no association between rebates and out-of-pocket costs, with a change from 2014 to 2018 of -$0.01 (95% CI, -$0.04 to $0.02). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that drug manufacturers may have provided larger rebates to insurers primarily by increasing list prices and that individuals without insurance had greater cost increases. The results emphasize the need for policy solutions that decouple list prices and out-of-pocket costs.

Cost sharing for breast cancer hormone therapy: How do dual eligible patients' copayment impact adherence.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the different levels of copayment assistance and treatment adherence among Medicare and Medicaid dual eligible beneficiaries with breast cancer in the U.S. RESEARCH DESIGN: Propensity Score methodology was adopted to minimize potential selection bias from the nonrandom allocation of the treatment group (i.e., full Medicaid beneficiaries) and control group (i.e., Medicare Savings Programs [MSPs] beneficiaries). Longitudinal hierarchical model and Cox proportional-hazard model were adopted to examine patients' adherence over their full five-year course of adjuvant hormone therapy. RESULTS: Our study cohort consisted of 1,133 dual eligible beneficiaries diagnosed with hormone receptor-positive early stage breast cancer in years 2007 -mid 2009. About 80.5% of them received MSPs benefits, while the rest received full Medicaid benefits. On average for a standardized 30-day hormone therapy medication, full Medicaid beneficiaries spent $0.5-$2.0 and MSP beneficiaries spent $1.4-$4.8 in copayment. After adjusting for other factors, this copayment reduction wasn't associated with a significantly better adherence. However, when the catastrophic coverage threshold was reached (copayments reduced to zero), significant improvement in adherence was found in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that small amount of cost-sharing reduction did not affect Medicare and Medicaid dual eligible patients' medication treatment adherence, however, the elimination of cost-sharing (even a minimal amount) was associated with improved adherence. Future legislative and advocacy efforts should be paid on eliminating cost sharing for dual eligibles, and possibly even a broader group of financially vulnerable patients.

Association of Drug Rebates and Competition With Out-of-Pocket Coinsurance in Medicare Part D, 2014 to 2018.

Importance: Prior research has documented the increase in prescription drug rebates and the coincident increase in out-of-pocket burden for patients paying coinsurance tied to list prices. Objective: To describe the out-of-pocket burden on patients with coinsurance and assess its association with pharmaceutical competition, which increases payers' leverage to seek higher rebates. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used branded prescription drugs with US sales reported by publicly traded companies. The study included drugs with nonmissing, nonnegative rebates between 2014 and 2018 from SSR Health. Data analysis was conducted from June to December 2020. Exposures: Level of branded and generic competition and calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Retail price markup (ie, the ratio of rebate to net price) paid by patients at the point of sale and effective out-of-pocket share (ie, coinsurance multiplied by list price divided by net price) of a standard Part D plan. Trends in these outcomes were examined and then stratified by degree of competition. Results: There were 3322 unique National Drug Codes in the analysis, representing 232 distinct molecules from 138 therapeutic classes in 34 disease areas. The ratio of rebate to net prices was higher and increased faster for drugs with branded and generic competitors (from 83% to 172%) than for drugs with only branded competitors (from 61% to 115%) and those without generic equivalents (from 33% to 49%). Hypothetical patients paying standard Part D coinsurance on drug list prices would have experienced an effective out-of-pocket share increase from 48% to 64% in the initial coverage phase, and from 10% to 13% in the catastrophic coverage phase between 2014 and 2018. In the coverage gap, the share increased from 92% in 2014 to 98% in 2016 and then decreased to 90% in 2018. Compared with drugs with no competition, effective out-of-pocket share paid by patients grew 50% faster for drugs with branded competitors and 100% faster for those with branded and generic competitors. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found substantial increases in cost-sharing burden for patients paying coinsurance on drug list prices between 2014 and 2018, especially in markets with more pharmaceutical competition. Payers passing rebates through to patients at the point of sale could restore the benefits of competition and rebates.

High-deductible health plans and low-value imaging in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of an employer-mandated switch to high-deductible health plans (HDHP) on emergency department (ED) low-value imaging. DATA SOURCES: Claims data of a large national insurer between 2003 and 2014. STUDY DESIGN: Difference-in-differences analysis with matched control groups. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The primary outcome is low-value imaging during ED visits for syncope, headache, or low back pain. We included members aged 19-63 years whose employers offered only low-deductible (≤$500) plans for one (baseline) year and, in the next (follow-up) year, offered only HDHPs (≥$1000). Contemporaneous members whose employers offered only low-deductible plans for two consecutive years served as controls. The groups were matched by person and employer propensity for HDHP switch, employer size, baseline calendar year, and baseline year quarterly number of total and imaged ED visits for each condition. We modeled the visit-level probability of low-value imaging using multivariable logistic regression with member-clustered standard errors. We also calculated population level monthly cumulative ED visit rates and modeled their trends using generalized linear regression adjusting for serial autocorrelation. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: After matching, we included 524 998 members in the HDHP group and 5 448 803 in the control group with a mean age of approximately 42 years and 48% female in both groups. On visit-level analyses, there were no significant differential changes in the probability of low-value imaging use in the HDHP and control groups. In population-level analyses, compared with control group members, members who switched to HDHPs experienced a relative decrease of 5.9% (95% CI - 10.3, -1.6) in ED visits for the study conditions and a relative decrease of 5.1% (95%CI -9.6, -0.6) in the subset of ED visits with low-value imaging. CONCLUSION: Though HDHP switches decreased ED utilization, they had no significant effect on low-value imaging use after patients have decided to seek ED care.

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.

Assessment of Behavioral Health Services Use Among Low-Income Medicare Beneficiaries After Reductions in Coinsurance Fees.

Importance: Medicare has historically imposed higher beneficiary coinsurance for behavioral health services than for medical and surgical care but gradually introduced parity between 2009 and 2014. Although Medicare insures many people with serious mental illness (SMI), there is limited information on the impact of coinsurance parity in this population. Objective: To examine the association between coinsurance parity and outpatient behavioral health care use among low-income beneficiaries with SMI. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used Medicare claims data for a 50% national sample of lower-income Medicare beneficiaries from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2016. The study sample included patients with SMI (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depressive disorder). Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2018, to July 15, 2020. Exposures: Reduction in behavioral health care coinsurance from 50% to 20% between January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2014. Main Outcomes and Measures: Total annual spending for outpatient behavioral health care visits and the percentage of beneficiaries with an annual outpatient behavioral health care visit overall, with a prescriber, and with a psychiatrist. A difference-in-difference approach was used to compare outcomes before and after the reduction in coinsurance for beneficiaries with and without cost-sharing decreases. Linear regression models with beneficiary fixed effects that adjusted for time-changing beneficiary- and area-level covariates were used to examine changes in outcomes. Results: The study included 793 275 beneficiaries with SMI in 2008; 518 893 (65.4%) were younger than 65 years (mean [SD] age, 57.6 [16.1] years), 511 265 (64.4%) were female, and 552 056 (69.6%) were White. In 2008, the adjusted percentage of beneficiaries with an outpatient behavioral health care visit was 40.7% (95% CI, 40.4%-41.0%) among those eligible for the cost-sharing reduction and 44.9% (95% CI, 44.9%-45.0%) among those with free care. The mean adjusted out-of-pocket costs for outpatient behavioral health care visits decreased from $132 (95% CI, $129-$136) in 2008 to $64 (95% CI, $61-$66) in 2016 among those with reductions in cost-sharing. The adjusted percentage of beneficiaries with behavioral health care visits increased to 42.2% (95% CI, 41.9%-42.5%) in the group with a reduction in coinsurance and to 47.2% (95% CI, 47.0%-47.3%) in the group with free care. The cost-sharing reduction was not positively associated with visits (eg, relative change of -0.76 percentage points [95% CI, -1.12 to -0.40 percentage points] in the percentage of beneficiaries with outpatient behavioral health care visits in 2016 vs 2008). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that beneficiary costs for outpatient behavioral health care decreased between 2009 and 2014. There was no association between cost-sharing reductions and changes in behavioral health care visits. Low levels of use in this high-need population suggest the need for other policy efforts to address additional barriers to behavioral health care.

Use of Health Savings Accounts Among US Adults Enrolled in High-Deductible Health Plans.

Importance: Health savings accounts (HSAs) can be used by enrollees in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) to save for health care expenses before taxes. Expansion of and encouraging contributions to HSAs have been centerpieces of recent federal legislation. Little is known about how US residents who may be eligible for HSAs are using them to save for health care. Objective: To determine which patients who may be eligible for an HSA do not have one and what decisions patients with HSAs make about contributing to them. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional national survey assessed an online survey panel representative of the US adult population. Adults aged 18 to 64 years and enrolled in an HDHP for at least 12 months were eligible to participate. Data were collected from August 26 to September 19, 2016, and analyzed from November 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of not having an HSA or not making HSA contributions in the last 12 months and reasons for not making the HSA contributions. Results: Based on data from 1637 individuals (American Association of Public Opinion Research response rate 4, 54.8%), half (50.6% [95% CI, 47.7%-53.6%]) of US adults in HDHPs were female, and most were aged 36 to 51 (35.7% [95% CI, 32.8%-38.6%]) or 52 to 64 (36.8% [95% CI, 34.1%-39.5%]) years. Approximately 1 in 3 (32.5% [95% CI, 29.8%-35.3%]) did not have an HSA. Those who obtained their health insurance through an exchange were more likely to lack an HSA (70.3% [95% CI, 61.9%-78.6%]) than those who worked for an employer that offered only 1 health insurance plan (36.5% [95% CI, 30.9%-42.1%]; P < .001). More than half of individuals with an HSA (55.0% [95% CI, 51.1%-58.8%]) had not contributed money into it in the last 12 months. Among HDHP enrollees with an HSA, those with at least a master's degree (46.1% [95% CI, 38.3%-53.9%]; P = .02) or a high level of health insurance literacy (47.3% [95% CI, 40.7%-54.0%]; P = .03) were less likely to have made no HAS contributions. Common reasons for not contributing to an HSA included not considering it (36.8% [95% CI, 30.8%-42.8%]) and being unable to afford saving for health care (31.9% [95% CI, 26.2%-37.6%]). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that many US adults enrolled in an HDHP lack an HSA, and few with an HSA saved for health care in the last year. Targeted interventions should be explored by employers, health plans, and health systems to encourage HSA uptake and contributions among individuals who could benefit from their use.

Value-based insurance design in Louisiana: Blue Cross Blue Shield's Zero Dollar Co-pay program.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a program that eliminated pharmacy co-pays, the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana (BCBSLA) Zero Dollar Co-pay (ZDC) program, decreased health care spending. Previous studies have found that value-based insurance designs like the ZDC program have little or no impact on total health care spending. ZDC included an expansive set of medications related to 4 chronic diseases rather than a limited set of medications for 1 or 2 chronic diseases. Additionally, ZDC focused on the most at-risk patients. STUDY DESIGN: ZDC began in 2014 and enrolled patients over time based on (1) when a patient answered a call from a nurse care manager and (2) when a patient or their employer changed the benefit structure to meet the program criteria. During 2015 and 2016, 265 patients with at least 1 chronic condition (asthma, diabetes, hypertension, mental illness) enrolled in ZDC. METHODS: Observational study using within-patient variation and variation in patient enrollment month to identify the impact of the ZDC program on health spending measures. We used 100% BCBSLA claims data from January 2015 to June 2018. Monthly level event studies were used to test for differential spending patterns prior to ZDC enrollment. RESULTS: We found that total spending decreased by $205.9 (P = .049) per member per month, or approximately 18%. We saw a decrease in medical spending ($195.0; P = .023) but did not detect a change in pharmacy spending ($7.59; P = .752). We found no evidence of changes in spending patterns prior to ZDC enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: The ZDC program provides evidence that value-based insurance designs that incorporate a comprehensive set of medications and focus on populations with chronic disease can reduce spending.

Effect of high-deductible insurance on health care use in bipolar disorder.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) on health care use among individuals with bipolar disorder. STUDY DESIGN: Interrupted time series with propensity score-matched control group design, using a national health insurer's claims data set with medical, pharmacy, and enrollment data. METHODS: The intervention group was composed of 2862 members with bipolar disorder who were enrolled for 1 year in a low-deductible (≤$500) plan and then 1 year in an HDHP (≥$1000) after an employer-mandated switch. HDHP members were propensity score matched 1:3 to contemporaneous controls in low-deductible plans. The main outcomes included out-of-pocket spending per health care service, mental health-related outpatient visits (subclassified as visits to nonpsychiatrist mental health providers and to psychiatrists), emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations. RESULTS: Mean pre- to post-index date out-of-pocket spending per visit on all mental health office visits, nonpsychiatrist mental health provider visits, and psychiatrist visits increased by 21.9% (95% CI, 15.1%-28.6%), 33.8% (95% CI, 2.0%-65.5%), and 17.8% (95% CI, 12.2%-23.4%), respectively, among HDHP vs control members. The HDHP group experienced a -4.6% (95% CI, -11.7% to 2.5%) pre- to post change in mental health outpatient visits relative to controls, a -10.9% (95% CI, -20.6% to -1.3%) reduction in nonpsychiatrist mental health provider visits, and unchanged psychiatrist visits. ED visits and hospitalizations were also unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: After a mandated switch to HDHPs, members with bipolar disorder experienced an 11% decline in visits to nonpsychiatrist mental health providers but unchanged psychiatrist visits, ED visits, and hospitalizations. HDHPs do not appear to have a "blunt instrument" effect on health care use in bipolar disorder; rather, patients might make trade-offs to preserve important care.

Patient co-payments for women diagnosed with breast cancer in Australia.

PURPOSE: Among Australian women, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer. The out-of-pocket cost to the patient is substantial. This study estimates the total patient co-payments for Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for women diagnosed with breast cancer and determined the distribution of these costs by Indigenous status, remoteness, and socioeconomic status. METHODS: Data on women diagnosed with breast cancer in Queensland between 01 July 2011 and 30 June 2012 were obtained from the Queensland Cancer Registry and linked with hospital and Emergency Department Admissions, and MBS and PBS records for the 3 years post-diagnosis. The data were then weighted to be representative of the Australian population. The co-payment charged for MBS services and PBS prescriptions was summed. We modelled the mean co-payment per patient during each 6-month time period for MBS services and PBS prescriptions. RESULTS: A total of 3079 women were diagnosed with breast cancer in Queensland during the 12-month study period, representing 15,335 Australian women after weighting. In the first 3 years post-diagnosis, the median co-payment for MBS services was AU$ 748 (IQR, AU$87-2121; maximum AU$32,249), and for PBS prescriptions was AU$ 835 (IQR, AU$480-1289; maximum AU$5390). There were significant differences in the co-payments for MBS services and PBS prescriptions by Indigenous status and socioeconomic disadvantage, but none for remoteness. CONCLUSIONS: Women incur high patient co-payments in the first 3 years post-diagnosis. These costs vary greatly by patient. Potential costs should be discussed with women throughout their treatment, to allow women greater choice in the most appropriate care for their situation.