Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on regular emergency department users.

OBJECTIVES: Regular users of the emergency department (ED) include both patients who could be better served in lower-acuity settings and those with high-severity conditions. ED use decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic, but patterns among regular ED users are unknown. To determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on this population, we examined quarterly postpandemic ED utilization among prepandemic regular ED users. Key subgroups included prepandemic ED users with regular visits for (1) low-severity conditions and (2) high-severity conditions. STUDY DESIGN: An event study design with COVID-19 and historic controls cohorts. METHODS: We identified 4710 regular ED users at baseline and followed their ED utilization for 7 quarters. We used a generalized estimating equations model to compare the relative quarterly percent difference in ED visit rates between the COVID-19 and historic controls cohorts. RESULTS: The first postpandemic quarter was associated with the largest decline in ED visits, at -36.0% (95% CI, -42.0% to -29.3%) per regular ED user overall, -52.2% (95% CI, -69.4% to -25.3%) among high-severity users, and -29.6% (95% CI, -39.8% to -17.8%) among low-severity users. However, use did not statistically differ from expected levels after 5 quarters among all regular ED users, 1 quarter among high-severity users, and 3 quarters among regular low-severity users. CONCLUSIONS: Initial reductions among regular high-severity ED users raise concern for harm from delayed or missed care but did not result in increased high-severity visits later. Nonsustained declines among regular low-severity ED users suggest barriers to and opportunities for redirecting nonurgent ED use to lower-acuity settings.

Association of State Insulin Out-of-Pocket Caps With Insulin Cost-Sharing and Use Among Commercially Insured Patients With Diabetes : A Pre-Post Study With a Control Group.

BACKGROUND: Twenty-five states have implemented insulin out-of-pocket (OOP) cost caps, but their effectiveness is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of state insulin OOP caps on insulin use and OOP costs among commercially insured persons with diabetes. DESIGN: Pre-post study with control group. SETTING: Eight states implementing insulin OOP caps of $25 to $30, $50, or $100 in January 2021, and 17 control states. PARTICIPANTS: Commercially insured persons with diabetes and insulin users younger than 65 years. Subgroups of particular interest included members from states with insulin OOP caps of $25 to $30, enrollees with health savings accounts (HSAs) that require high insulin OOP payments, and lower-income members. MEASUREMENTS: Mean monthly 30-day insulin fills and OOP costs. RESULTS: State insulin caps were not associated with changes in insulin use in the overall population (relative change in fills per month, 1.8% [95% CI, -3.2% to 6.9%]). Insulin users in intervention states saw a 17.4% (CI, -23.9% to -10.9%) relative reduction in insulin OOP costs, largely driven by reductions among HSA enrollees; there was no difference in OOP costs among nonaccount plan members. More generous ($25 to $30) state insulin OOP caps were associated with insulin OOP cost reductions of 40.0% (CI, -62.5% to -17.6%), again primarily driven by a larger reduction in the subgroup with HSA plans. LIMITATIONS: Single national insurer; 9-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: Insulin OOP caps were associated with reduced insulin OOP costs but no overall increases in insulin use. A proposed national insulin cap of $35 for commercially insured persons might lead to meaningful insulin OOP savings but have a limited effect on insulin use. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

Utilization and Spending With Preventive Drug Lists for Asthma Medications in High-Deductible Health Plans.

Importance: High-deductible health plans with health savings accounts (HDHP-HSAs) incentivize patients to use less health care, including necessary care. Preventive drug lists (PDLs) exempt high-value medications from the deductible, reducing out-of-pocket cost sharing; the associations of PDLs with health outcomes among patients with asthma is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the associations of a PDL for asthma medications on utilization, adverse outcomes, and patient spending for HDHP-HSA enrollees with asthma. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control study used matched groups of patients with asthma before and after an insurance design change using a national commercial health insurance claims data set from 2004-2017. Participants included patients aged 4 to 64 years enrolled for 1 year in an HDHP-HSA without a PDL in which asthma medications were subject to the deductible who then transitioned to an HDHP-HSA with a PDL that included asthma medications; these patients were compared with a matched weighted sample of patients with 2 years of continuous enrollment in an HDHP-HSA without a PDL. Models controlled for patient demographics and asthma severity and were stratified by neighborhood income. Analyses were conducted from October 2020 to June 2023. Exposures: Employer-mandated addition of a PDL that included asthma medications to an existing HDHP-HSA. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were utilization of asthma medications on the PDL (controllers and albuterol), asthma exacerbations (oral steroid bursts and asthma-related emergency department use), and out-of-pocket spending (all and asthma-specific). Results: A total of 12 174 participants (mean [SD] age, 36.9 [16.9] years; 6848 [56.25%] female) were included in analyses. Compared with no PDL, PDLs were associated with increased rates of 30-day fills per enrollee for any controller medication (change, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.17] fills per enrollee; 12.9% increase) and for combination inhaled corticosteroid long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS-LABA) medications (change, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.10] fills per enrollee; 25.4% increase), and increased proportion of days covered with ICS-LABA (6.0% [0.7% to 11.3%] of days; 15.6% increase). Gaining a PDL was associated with decreased out-of-pocket spending on asthma care (change, -$34 [95% CI, -$47 to -$21] per enrollee; 28.4% difference), but there was no significant change in asthma exacerbations and no difference in results by income. Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study, reducing cost-sharing for asthma medications through a PDL was associated with increased adherence to controller medications, notably ICS-LABA medications used by patients with more severe asthma, but was not associated with improved clinical outcomes. These findings suggest that PDLs are a potential strategy to improve access and affordability of asthma care for patients in HDHP-HSAs.

The Increasing Adoption of Out-of-Pocket Cost Caps: Benefits, Unintended Consequences, and Policy Opportunities.

This Viewpoint discusses potential benefits and unintended consequences of out-of-pocket cost caps in Medicare and the employer-sponsored health insurance market and provides suggested policy opportunities to address shortcomings.

State Mandatory Paid Sick Leave Associated With A Decline In Emergency Department Use In The US, 2011-19.

Paid sick leave provides workers with job-protected paid time off to address short-term illnesses or seek preventive care for themselves and their family members. We studied the impact of mandatory paid sick leave at the state level on emergency department (ED) visit rates, using all-payer, longitudinal ED data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project for the period 2011-19. We found that state implementation of paid sick leave mandates was associated with a 5.6 percent reduction in the total ED visit rate relative to the baseline, equivalent to 23 fewer visits per 1,000 population per year. The reduction was concentrated in Medicaid patients. Some of the largest reductions were ED visits related to adult dental conditions, adult mental health or substance use disorders, and pediatric asthma. Mandatory paid sick leave may be an effective policy lever to reduce excess ED use and costs.

Evaluating Natural Experiments that Impact the Diabetes Epidemic: an Introduction to the NEXT-D3 Network.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diabetes is an ongoing public health issue in the USA, and, despite progress, recent reports suggest acute and chronic diabetes complications are increasing. RECENT FINDINGS: The Natural Experiments for Translation in Diabetes 3.0 (NEXT-D3) Network is a 5-year research collaboration involving six academic centers (Harvard University, Northwestern University, Oregon Health & Science University, Tulane University, University of California Los Angeles, and University of California San Francisco) and two funding agencies (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institutes of Health) to address the gaps leading to persisting diabetes burdens. The network builds on previously funded networks, expanding to include type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention and an emphasis on health equity. NEXT-D3 researchers use rigorous natural experiment study designs to evaluate impacts of naturally occurring programs and policies, with a focus on diabetes-related outcomes. NEXT-D3 projects address whether and to what extent federal or state legislative policies and health plan innovations affect T2D risk and diabetes treatment and outcomes in the USA; real-world effects of increased access to health insurance under the Affordable Care Act; and the effectiveness of interventions that reduce barriers to medication access (e.g., decreased or eliminated cost sharing for cardiometabolic medications and new medications such as SGLT-2 inhibitors for Medicaid patients). Overarching goals include (1) expanding generalizable knowledge about policies and programs to manage or prevent T2D and educate decision-makers and organizations and (2) generating evidence to guide the development of health equity goals to reduce disparities in T2D-related risk factors, treatment, and complications.

Trends in Annual Surveillance Mammography Participation Among Breast Cancer Survivors From 2004 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: Annual mammography is recommended for breast cancer survivors; however, population-level temporal trends in surveillance mammography participation have not been described. Our objective was to characterize trends in annual surveillance mammography participation among women with a personal history of breast cancer over a 13-year period. METHODS: We examined annual surveillance mammography participation from 2004 to 2016 in a nationwide sample of commercially insured women with prior breast cancer. Rates were stratified by age group (40-49 vs 50-64 years), visit with a surgical/oncology specialist or primary care provider within the prior year, and sociodemographic characteristics. Joinpoint models were used to estimate annual percentage changes (APCs) in participation during the study period. RESULTS: Among 141,672 women, mammography rates declined from 74.1% in 2004 to 67.1% in 2016. Rates were stable from 2004 to 2009 (APC, 0.1%; 95% CI, -0.5% to 0.8%) but declined 1.5% annually from 2009 to 2016 (95% CI, -1.9% to -1.1%). For women aged 40 to 49 years, rates declined 2.8% annually (95% CI, -3.4% to -2.1%) after 2009 versus 1.4% annually in women aged 50 to 64 years (95% CI, -1.9% to -1.0%). Similar trends were observed in women who had seen a surgeon/oncologist (APC, -1.7%; 95% CI, -2.1% to -1.4%) or a primary care provider (APC, -1.6%; 95% CI, -2.1% to -1.2%) in the prior year. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance mammography participation among breast cancer survivors declined from 2009 to 2016, most notably among women aged 40 to 49 years. These findings highlight a need for focused efforts to improve adherence to surveillance and prevent delays in detection of breast cancer recurrence and second cancers.

High-Deductible Health Plans Paired With Health Savings Accounts Increased Medication Cost Burden Among Individuals With Bipolar Disorder.

Objective: High-deductible health plans paired with health savings accounts (HSA-HDHPs) require substantial out-of-pocket spending for most services, including medications. We examined effects of HSA-HDHPs on medication out-of-pocket spending and use among people with bipolar disorder.Methods: This quasi-experimental study used claims data for January 2003 through December 2014. We studied a national sample of 348 members with bipolar disorder (defined based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision), aged 12 to 64 years, who were continuously enrolled for 1 year in a low-deductible plan (≤ $500) then 1 year in an HSA-HDHP (≥ $1,000) after an employer-mandated switch. HSA-HDHP members were matched to 4,087 contemporaneous controls who remained in low-deductible plans. Outcome measures included out-of-pocket spending and use of bipolar disorder medications, non-bipolar psychotropics, and all other medications.Results: Mean pre-to-post out-of-pocket spending per person for bipolar disorder medications increased by 149.7% among HSA-HDHP versus control members (95% confidence interval [CI], 109.9% to 189.5%). Specifically, out-of-pocket spending increased for antipsychotics (220.9% [95% CI, 150.0% to 291.8%]) and anticonvulsants (109.6% [95% CI, 67.3% to 152.0%]). Both higher-income and lower-income HSA-HDHP members experienced increases in out-of-pocket spending for bipolar disorder medications (135.2% [95% CI, 86.4% to 184.0%] and 164.5% [95% CI, 100.9% to 228.1%], respectively). We did not detect statistically significant changes in use of bipolar disorder medications, non-bipolar psychotropics, or all other medications in this study population of HSA-HDHP members.Conclusions: HSA-HDHP members with bipolar disorder experienced substantial increases in out-of-pocket burdens for medications essential for their functioning and well-being. Although HSA-HDHPs were not associated with detectable reductions in medication use, high out-of-pocket costs could cause financial strain for lower-income enrollees.

Use of Palliative Care Among Commercially Insured Patients With Metastatic Cancer Between 2001 and 2016.

PURPOSE: Early palliative care, concomitant with disease-directed treatments, is recommended for all patients with advanced cancer. This study assesses population-level trends in palliative care use among a large cohort of commercially insured patients with metastatic cancer, applying an expanded definition of palliative care services based on claims data. METHODS: Using nationally representative commercial insurance claims data, we identified patients with metastatic breast, colorectal, lung, bronchus, trachea, ovarian, esophageal, pancreatic, and liver cancers and melanoma between 2001 and 2016. We assessed the annual proportions of these patients who received services specified as, or indicative of, palliative care. Using Cox proportional hazard models, we assessed whether the time from diagnosis of metastatic cancer to first encounter of palliative care differed by demographic characteristics, socioeconomic factors, or region. RESULTS: In 2016, 36% of patients with very poor prognosis cancers received a service specified as, or indicative of, palliative care versus 18% of those with poor prognosis cancers. Being diagnosed in more recent years (2009-2016 v 2001-2008: hazard ratio [HR], 1.8; P < .001); a diagnosis of metastatic esophagus, liver, lung, or pancreatic cancer, or melanoma (v breast cancer, eg, esophagus HR, 1.89; P < .001); a greater number of comorbidities (American Hospital Formulary Service classes > 10 v 0: HR, 1.71; P < .001); and living in the Northeast (HR, 1.43; P < .001) or Midwest (v South: HR, 1.39; P < .001) were the strongest predictors of shorter time from diagnosis to palliative care. CONCLUSION: Use of palliative care among commercially insured patients with advanced cancers has increased since 2001. However, even with an expanded definition of services specified as, or indicative of, palliative care, < 40% of patients with advanced cancers received palliative care in 2016.

Diabetes Microvascular Disease Diagnosis and Treatment After High-Deductible Health Plan Enrollment.

OBJECTIVE: The Affordable Care Act mandates that primary preventive services have no out-of-pocket costs but does not exempt secondary prevention from out-of-pocket costs. Most commercially insured patients with diabetes have high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) that subject key microvascular disease-related services to high out-of-pocket costs. Brief treatment delays can significantly worsen microvascular disease outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This cohort study used a large national commercial (and Medicare Advantage) health insurance claims data set to examine matched groups before and after an insurance design change. The study group included 50,790 patients with diabetes who were continuously enrolled in low-deductible (≤$500) health plans during a baseline year, followed by up to 4 years in high-deductible (≥$1,000) plans after an employer-mandated switch. HDHPs had low out-of-pocket costs for nephropathy screening but not retinopathy screening. A matched control group included 335,178 patients with diabetes who were contemporaneously enrolled in low-deductible plans. Measures included time to first detected microvascular disease screening, severe microvascular disease diagnosis, vision loss diagnosis/treatment, and renal function loss diagnosis/treatment. RESULTS: HDHP enrollment was associated with relative delays in retinopathy screening (0.7 months [95% CI 0.4, 1.0]), severe retinopathy diagnosis (2.9 months [0.5, 5.3]), and vision loss diagnosis/treatment (3.8 months [1.2, 6.3]). Nephropathy-associated measures did not change to a statistically significant degree among HDHP members relative to control subjects at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: People with diabetes in HDHPs experienced delayed retinopathy diagnosis and vision loss diagnosis/treatment of up to 3.8 months compared with low-deductible plan enrollees. Findings raise concerns about visual health among HDHP members and call attention to discrepancies in Affordable Care Act cost sharing exemptions.

Out-of-Pocket Spending for Asthma-Related Care Among Commercially Insured Patients, 2004-2016.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-pocket (OOP) health care costs can cause financial burden and deferred care for many Americans. Little is known about OOP spending for asthma-related care among the commercially insured. OBJECTIVES: To analyze OOP spending for asthma-related care overall, across types of care, and by income. METHODS: Using enrollment, claims, and geocoded census tract data on income from a large US commercial health plan from 2004 to 2016, we measured inflation-adjusted OOP spending for individuals with asthma ages 4 to 64 years (n = 1,986,769). We estimated annual asthma-related OOP spending over time, and average total, asthma-related, asthma type of care, and asthma medication spending by income. We measured trends in median OOP cost per medication. Linear regression models were adjusted for patient covariates and deductible level. RESULTS: Asthma-related OOP spending decreased over time both for patients enrolled in high-deductible health plans and for those in traditional plans. High-deductible plan enrollment increased from 7% to 54%. Compared with patients living in high-income areas, patients in the lowest-income areas had similar annual total and asthma-related OOP spending, but spent 30% less on controller medications and a higher proportion of their asthma-related OOP spending on inpatient and emergency care (10% vs 3%; P < .001). Asthma-related OOP spending represented a higher proportion of household income for patients in lower-income areas. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with asthma living in the lowest-income areas have greater cost burden, lower spending on controller medications, and greater spending on high-acuity care than higher-income counterparts.

Impact of High-Deductible Health Plans on Emergency Department Patients With Nonspecific Chest Pain and Their Subsequent Care.

BACKGROUND: Timely evaluation of acute chest pain is necessary, although most evaluations will not find significant coronary disease. With employers increasingly adopting high-deductible health plans (HDHP), how HDHPs impact subsequent care after an emergency department (ED) diagnosis of nonspecific chest pain is unclear. METHODS: Using a commercial and Medicare Advantage claims database, we identified members 19 to 63 years old whose employers exclusively offered low-deductible (≤$500) plans in 1 year, then, at an index date, mandated enrollment in HDHPs (≥$1000) for a subsequent year. We matched them with contemporaneous members whose employers only offered low-deductible plans. Primary outcomes included population rates of index ED visits with a principal diagnosis of nonspecific chest pain, admission during index ED visits, and index ED visits followed by noninvasive cardiac testing within 3 and 30 days, coronary revascularization, and acute myocardial infarction hospitalization within 30 days. We performed a cumulative interrupted time-series analysis, comparing changes in annual outcomes between the HDHP and control groups before and after the index date using aggregate-level segmented regression. Members from higher-poverty neighborhoods were a subgroup of interest. RESULTS: After matching, we included 557 501 members in the HDHP group and 5 861 990 in the control group, with mean ages of 42.0 years, 48% to 49% female, and 67% to 68% non-Hispanic White individuals. Employer-mandated HDHP switches were associated with a relative decrease of 4.3% (95% CI, -5.9 to -2.7; absolute change, -4.5 [95% CI, -6.3 to -2.8] per 10 000 person-years) in nonspecific chest pain ED visits and 11.3% (95% CI, -14.0 to -8.6) decrease (absolute change, -1.7 per 10 000 person-years [95% CI, -2.1 to -1.2]) in visits leading to hospitalization. There was no significant decrease in subsequent noninvasive testing or revascularization procedures. An increase in 30-day acute myocardial infarction admissions was not statistically significant (15.9% [95% CI, -1.0 to 32.7]; absolute change, 0.3 per 10 000 person-years [95% CI, -0.01 to 0.5]) but was significant among members from higher-poverty neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: Employer-mandated HDHP switches were associated with decreased nonspecific chest pain ED visits and hospitalization from these ED visits, but no significant change in post-ED cardiac testing. However, HDHP enrollment was associated with increased 30-day acute myocardial infarction admission after ED diagnosis of nonspecific chest pain among members from higher-poverty neighborhoods.

Impact of High-Deductible Health Plans on Medication Use Among Individuals With Bipolar Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) require substantial out-of-pocket spending for most services, although medications may be subject to traditional copayment arrangements. This study examined effects of HDHPs on medication out-of-pocket spending and use and quality of care among individuals with bipolar disorder. METHODS: This quasi-experimental study used claims data (2003-2014) for a national sample of 3,532 members with bipolar disorder, ages 12-64, continuously enrolled for 1 year in a low-deductible plan (≤$500) and then for 1 year in an HDHP (≥$1,000) after an employer-mandated switch. HDHP members were matched to 18,923 contemporaneous individuals in low-deductible plans (control group). Outcome measures were out-of-pocket spending and use of bipolar disorder medications, psychotropics for other disorders, and all other medications and appropriate laboratory monitoring for psychotropics. RESULTS: Relative to the control group, annual out-of-pocket spending per person for bipolar disorder medications increased 20.8% among HDHP members (95% confidence interval [CI]=14.9%-26.7%), and the absolute increase was $36 (95% CI=$25.9-$45.2). Specifically, out-of-pocket spending increased for antipsychotics (27.1%; 95% CI=17.4%-36.7%) and anticonvulsants (19.2%; 95% CI=11.9%-26.6%) but remained stable for lithium (-3.7%; 95% CI=-12.2% to 4.8%). No statistically significant changes were detected in use of bipolar disorder medications, other psychotropics, or all other medications or in appropriate laboratory monitoring for bipolar disorder medications. CONCLUSIONS: HDHP members with bipolar disorder experienced a moderate increase in out-of-pocket spending for medications but preserved bipolar disorder medication use. Findings may reflect individuals' perceptions of the importance of these medications for their functioning and well-being.

Controller Medication Use and Exacerbations for Children and Adults With Asthma in High-Deductible Health Plans.

Importance: High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are increasingly common and associated with decreased medication use in some adult populations. How children are affected is less certain. Objective: To examine the association between HDHP enrollment and asthma controller medication use and exacerbations. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this longitudinal cohort study with a difference-in-differences design, data were obtained from a large, national, commercial (and Medicare Advantage) administrative claims database between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2014. Children aged 4 to 17 years and adults aged 18 to 64 years with persistent asthma who switched from traditional plans to HDHPs or remained in traditional plans (control group) by employer choice during a 24-month period were identified. A coarsened exact matching technique was used to balance the groups on characteristics including employer and enrollee propensity to have HDHPs. In most HDHPs, asthma medications were exempt from the deductible and subject to copayments. Statistical analyses were conducted from August 13, 2019, to January 19, 2021. Exposure: Employer-mandated HDHP transition. Main Outcomes and Measures: Thirty-day fill rates and adherence (based on proportion of days covered [PDC]) were measured for asthma controller medications (inhaled corticosteroid [ICS], leukotriene inhibitors, and ICS long-acting ß-agonists [ICS-LABAs]). Asthma exacerbations were measured by rates of oral corticosteroid bursts and asthma-related emergency department visits among controller medication users. Results: The HDHP group included 7275 children (mean [SD] age, 10.8 [3.3] years; 4402 boys [60.5%]; and 5172 non-Hispanic White children [71.1%]) and 17 614 adults (mean [SD] age, 41.1 [13.4] years; 10 464 women [59.4%]; and 12 548 non-Hispanic White adults [71.2%]). The matched control group included 45 549 children and 114 141 adults. Compared with controls, children switching to HDHPs experienced significant absolute decreases in annual 30-day fills only for ICS-LABA medications (absolute change, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.07 to -0.01). Adults switching to HDHPs did not have significant reductions in 30-day fills for any controllers. There were no statistically significant differences in PDC, oral steroid bursts, or asthma-related emergency department visits for children or adults. For the 9.9% of HDHP enrollees with health savings account-eligible HDHPs that subjected medications to the deductible, there was a significant absolute decrease in PDC for ICS-LABA compared with controls (-4.8%; 95% CI, -7.7% to -1.9%). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that in a population where medications were exempt from the deductible for most enrollees, HDHP enrollment was associated with minimal or no reductions in controller medication use for children and adults and no change in asthma exacerbations. These findings suggest a potential benefit from exempting asthma medications from the deductible in HDHPs.

Experiences of health care costs among people with employer-sponsored insurance and bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: Cost-sharing disproportionately affects people with chronic illnesses needing more care. Our qualitative study examined lived experiences navigating insurance benefits and treatment for bipolar disorder, which requires ongoing access to behavioral specialists and psychotropic medications. METHODS: Forty semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals with bipolar disorder and employer-sponsored health insurance, or their family caregivers, explored health care needs, coverage details, out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, and perspectives on value. An iterative analytic approach identified salient themes. RESULTS: Most individuals in our sample faced an annual insurance deductible, from $350-$10,000. OOP costs for specialist visits ranged from $0-$450 and for monthly psychotropic medications from $0-$1650. Acute episodes and care for comorbidities, including medication side effects, added to cost burdens. Medication nonadherence due to OOP costs was rare; respondents frequently pointed to the necessity of medications: "whatever it takes to get those"; "it's a life or death situation." Respondents also prioritized visits to psychiatrist prescribers, though visits were maximally spaced because of cost. Psychotherapy was often deemed unaffordable and forgone, despite perceived need. Interviewees cited limited networks and high out-of-network costs as barriers to specialists. Cost-sharing sometimes led to debt, skimping on nonbehavioral care or other necessities, exacerbated or prolonged mood symptoms, and stress at home. LIMITATIONS: Volunteer respondents may not fully represent the target population. CONCLUSIONS: Many people with bipolar disorder in US employer-sponsored plans experience undertreatment, hardship, and adverse health consequences due to high cost-sharing. More nuanced insurance benefit designs should accommodate the needs of individuals with complex conditions.

A Randomized Encouragement Trial to Increase Mail Order Pharmacy Use and Medication Adherence in Patients with Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Mail order pharmacy (MOP) use has been linked to improved medication adherence and health outcomes among patients with diabetes. However, no large-scale intervention studies have assessed the effect of encouraging MOP use on medication adherence. OBJECTIVE: To assess an intervention to encourage MOP services to increase its use and medication adherence. DESIGN: Randomized encouragement trial. PATIENTS: 63,012 diabetes patients from three health care systems: Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), Kaiser Permanente Hawaii (KPHI), and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (HPHC) who were poorly adherent to at least one class of cardiometabolic medications and had not used MOP in the prior 12 months. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive either usual care (control arm) or outreach encouraging MOP use consisting of a mailed letter, secure email message, and automated telephone call outlining the potential benefits of MOP use (intervention arm). HPHC intervention patients received the letter only. MEASUREMENTS: We compared the percentages of patients that began using MOP and that became adherent to cardiometabolic medication classes during a 12-month follow-up period. We also conducted a race/ethnicity-stratified analysis. RESULTS: During follow-up, 10.6% of intervention patients began using MOP vs. 9.3% of controls (p < 0.01); the percent of cardiometabolic medication delivered via mail was 42.1% vs. 39.8% (p < 0.01). Metformin adherence improved in the intervention arm relative to control at the two KP sites (52% vs. 49%, p < 0.01). Stratified analyses suggested a significant positive effect of the intervention in White (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.22) and Asian (RR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.17, 1.45) patients. CONCLUSION: This pragmatic trial showed that simple outreach to encourage MOP modestly increased its use and improved adherence measured by refills to a key class of diabetes medications in some settings. Given its minimal cost, clinicians and health systems should consider outreach interventions to actively promote MOP use among diabetes patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT02621476.