Insulin Fills by Medicare Enrollees and Out-of-Pocket Caps Under the Inflation Reduction Act.

This study uses data from IQVIA's National Prescription Audit to assess the association of the Inflation Reduction Act's cap on cost sharing with insulin fills by Medicare beneficiaries.

Variation in Initiation, Engagement, and Retention on Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Based on Health Insurance Plan Design.

BACKGROUND: The association between cost-sharing and receipt of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is unknown. METHODS: We constructed a cohort of 10,513 commercially insured individuals with a new diagnosis of opioid use disorder and information on insurance cost-sharing in a large national deidentified claims database. We examined 4 cost-sharing measures: (1) pharmacy deductible; (2) medical service deductible; (3) pharmacy medication copay; and (4) medical office copay. We measured MOUD (naltrexone, buprenorphine, or methadone) initiation (within 14 d of diagnosis), engagement (second receipt within 34 d of first), and 6-month retention (continuous receipt without 14-d gap). We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the association between cost-sharing and MOUD initiation, engagement, and retention. We calculated total out-of-pocket costs in the 30 days following MOUD initiation for each type of MOUD. RESULTS: Of 10,513 individuals with incident opioid use disorder, 1202 (11%) initiated MOUD, 742 (7%) engaged, and 253 (2%) were retained in MOUD at 6 months. A high ($1000+) medical deductible was associated with a lower odds of initiation compared with no deductible (odds ratio: 0.85, 95% confidence interval: 0.74-0.98). We found no significant associations between other cost-sharing measures for initiation, engagement, or retention. Median initial 30-day out-of-pocket costs ranged from $100 for methadone to $710 for extended-release naltrexone. CONCLUSIONS: Among insurance plan cost-sharing measures, only medical services deductible showed an association with decreased MOUD initiation. Policy and benefit design should consider ways to reduce cost barriers to initiation and retention in MOUD.

Paying patients to use lower-priced providers.

OBJECTIVE: Many employers have introduced rewards programs as a new benefit design in which employees are paid $25-$500 if they receive care from lower-priced providers. Our goal was to assess the impact of the rewards program on procedure prices and choice of provider and how these outcomes vary by length of exposure to the program and patient population. STUDY SETTING: A total of 87 employers from across the nation with 563,000 employees and dependents who have introduced the rewards program in 2017 and 2018. STUDY DESIGN: Difference-in-difference analysis comparing changes in average prices and market share of lower-priced providers among employers who introduced the reward program to those that did not. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: We used claims data for 3.9 million enrollees of a large health plan. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Introduction of the program was associated with a 1.3% reduction in prices during the first year and a 3.7% reduction in the second year of access. Use of the program and price reductions are concentrated among magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) services, for which 30% of patients engaged with the program, 5.6% of patients received an incentive payment in the first year, and 7.8% received an incentive payment in the second year. MRI prices were 3.7% and 6.5% lower in the first and second years, respectively. We did not observe differential impacts related to enrollment in a consumer-directed health plan or the degree of market-level price variation. We also did not observe a change in utilization. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of financial incentives to reward patients from receiving care from lower-priced providers is associated with modest price reductions, and savings are concentrated among MRI services.

Assessment of Out-of-Pocket Spending for COVID-19 Hospitalizations in the US in 2020.

Importance: Many insurers waived cost sharing for COVID-19 hospitalizations during 2020. Nonetheless, patients may have been billed if their plans did not implement waivers or if waivers did not capture all hospitalization-related care. Assessment of out-of-pocket spending for COVID-19 hospitalizations in 2020 may show the financial burden that patients may experience if insurers allow waivers to expire, as many chose to do during 2021. Objective: To estimate out-of-pocket spending for COVID-19 hospitalizations in the US in 2020. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus for Academics Database, a national claims database representing 7.7 million privately insured patients and 1.0 million Medicare Advantage patients, regarding COVID-19 hospitalizations for privately insured and Medicare Advantage patients from March to September 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean total out-of-pocket spending, defined as the sum of out-of-pocket spending for facility services billed by hospitals (eg, accommodation charges) and professional and ancillary services billed by clinicians and ancillary providers (eg, clinician inpatient evaluation and management, ambulance transport). Results: Analyses included 4075 hospitalizations; 2091 (51.3%) were for male patients, and the mean (SD) age of patients was 66.8 (14.8) years. Of these hospitalizations, 1377 (33.8%) were for privately insured patients. Out-of-pocket spending for facility services, professional and ancillary services, or both was reported for 981 of 1377 hospitalizations for privately insured patients (71.2%) and 1324 of 2968 hospitalizations for Medicare Advantage patients (49.1%). Among these hospitalizations, mean (SD) total out-of-pocket spending was $788 ($1411) for privately insured patients and $277 ($363) for Medicare Advantage patients. In contrast, out-of-pocket spending for facility services was reported for 63 hospitalizations for privately insured patients (4.6%) and 36 hospitalizations for Medicare Advantage patients (1.3%). Among these hospitalizations, mean (SD) total out-of-pocket spending was $3840 ($3186) for privately insured patients and $1536 ($1402) for Medicare Advantage patients. Total out-of-pocket spending exceeded $4000 for 2.5% of privately insured hospitalizations compared with 0.2% of Medicare Advantage hospitalizations. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, few patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in 2020 were billed for facility services provided by hospitals, suggesting that most were covered by insurers with cost-sharing waivers. However, many patients were billed for professional and ancillary services, suggesting that insurer cost-sharing waivers may not have covered all hospitalization-related care. High cost sharing for patients who were billed by facility services suggests that out-of-pocket spending may be substantial for patients whose insurers have allowed waivers to expire.

Patient administrative burden in the US health care system.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of patient administrative tasks and whether they are associated with delayed and/or foregone care. DATA SOURCE: March 2019 Health Reform Monitoring Survey. STUDY DESIGN: We assess the prevalence of five common patient administrative tasks-scheduling, obtaining information, prior authorizations, resolving billing issues, and resolving premium problems-and associated administrative burden, defined as delayed and/or foregone care. Using multivariate logistic models, we examined the association of demographic characteristics with odds of doing tasks and experiencing burdens. Our outcome variables were five common types of administrative tasks as well as composite measures of any task, any delayed care, any foregone care, and any burden (combined delayed/foregone), respectively. DATA COLLECTION: We developed and administered survey questions to a nationally representative sample of insured, nonelderly adults (n = 4155). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The survey completion rate was 62%. Seventy-three percent of respondents reported performing at least one administrative task in the past year. About one in three task-doers, or 24.4% of respondents overall, reported delayed or foregone care due to an administrative task: Adjusted for demographics, disability status had the strongest association with administrative tasks (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.91, p < 0.001) and burden (adjusted OR 1.66, p < 0.001). Being a woman was associated with doing administrative tasks (adjusted OR 2.19, p < 0.001). Being a college graduate was associated with performing an administrative task (adjusted OR 2.79, p < 0.001), while higher income was associated with fewer subsequent burdens (adjusted OR 0.55, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients frequently do administrative tasks that can create burdens resulting in delayed/foregone care. The prevalence of delayed/foregone care due to administrative tasks is comparable to similar estimates of cost-related barriers to care. Demographic disparities in burden warrant further attention. Enhancing measurement of patient administrative work and associated burdens may identify opportunities for assessing quality, value, and patient experience.

Cost-sharing With Medicaid Expansion in Michigan: Obligations and Propensity to Pay.

BACKGROUND: Six states expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act have obtained waivers to incorporate cost-sharing. OBJECTIVE: We describe the magnitude and distribution of cost-sharing imposed by the Healthy Michigan Plan and enrollees' propensity to pay. RESEARCH DESIGN: Enrollees are followed for at least 18 months (6-mo baseline period for utilization and spending before receipt of first cost-sharing statement; ≥12 mo follow-up thereafter to ascertain obligations and payments). Analyses stratified by income, comparing enrollees with income less than Federal Poverty Level (FPL) who faced only utilization-based copayments and those greater than or equal to FPL who also faced premium contributions. SUBJECTS: A total of 158,322 enrollees aged 22-62 who initially enrolled during the first year of the program and remained continuously enrolled ≥18 months. RESULTS: Among those enrolled ≥18 months, 51.0% faced cost-sharing. Average quarterly invoices were $4.85 ($11.11 for those with positive invoices) for income less than FPL and $26.71 ($30.93 for those with positive invoices) for incomes greater than or equal to FPL. About half of enrollees with obligations made at least partial payments, with payments being more likely among those >100% FPL. Payment of the full obligation was highest in the initial 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Many payment obligations go uncollected, suggesting that in a system without the threat of disenrollment, the impacts of cost-sharing may be muted. Similarly, the ability of cost-sharing to defray the program's budgetary impact may also be less than anticipated.

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.

Mandated Copayment Reductions in Medicare Advantage: Effects on Skilled Nursing Care, Hospitalizations, and Plan Exit.

OBJECTIVES: To address concerns that postacute cost-sharing may deter high-need beneficiaries from participating in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have capped cost-sharing for skilled nursing facility (SNF) services in MA plans since 2011. This study examines whether SNF use, inpatient use, and plan disenrollment changed following stricter regulations in 2015 that required most MA plans to eliminate or substantially reduce cost-sharing for SNF care. DESIGN: Difference-in-differences retrospective analysis from 2013 to 2016. SETTING: MA plans. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one million MA members in 320 plans with mandatory cost-sharing reductions and 261 plans without such reductions. MEASUREMENTS: Mean monthly number of SNF admissions, SNF days, hospitalizations, and plan disenrollees per 1000 members. RESULTS: Mean total cost-sharing for the first 20 days of SNF services decreased from $911 to $104 in affected plans. Relative to concurrent changes in plans without mandated cost-sharing reductions, plans with mandatory cost-sharing reductions experienced no significant differences in the number of SNF days per 1000 members (adjusted between-group difference: 0.4 days per 1000 members [95% confidence interval (95% CI), -5.2 to 6.0, P=0.89], small decreases in the number of hospitalizations per 1000 members [adjusted between-group difference: 0.6 admissions per 1000 members (95% CI, -1.0 to -0.1; P=0.03)], and small decreases in the number of SNF users who disenrolled at year-end [adjusted between-group difference: -16.8 disenrollees per 1000 members (95% CI, -31.9 to -1.8; P=0.03)]. CONCLUSIONS: Mandated reductions in SNF cost-sharing may have curbed selective disenrollment from MA plans without significantly increasing use of SNF 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.

Cost sharing, postpartum contraceptive use, and short interpregnancy interval rates among commercially insured women.

BACKGROUND: Increasing access to effective birth control after childbirth may meet many women's preferences and reduce short interpregnancy interval rates. Eliminating out-of-pocket costs for contraception has been reported to increase the use of the most effective methods among women with employer-based insurance, but the prevalence and effects of patient cost sharing for contraception have not been studied during the postpartum period. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the association between cost sharing for long-acting reversible contraception and postpartum contraception use patterns and pregnancies in the 12 months after delivery. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of commercially insured women undergoing childbirth from 2014 to 2018 using Optum's (Eden Prairie, MN) de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database. This large national database includes nonretired employees and their dependents who are enrolled in health insurance plans sponsored by large- or medium-sized US-based employers. Women with 12 months of continuous enrollment postpartum were included. Childbirth, pregnancy, and contraceptive method (female sterilization, long-acting reversible contraceptives, other hormonal methods, and no prescription method observed) were identified using claims data. Contraceptive use patterns were observed at 3, 6, and 12 months postpartum and adjusted for individual and plan characteristics. Median out-of-pocket costs were $0 for sterilization and other hormonal methods but nonzero for long-acting reversible contraception. We therefore used simple and multivariable logistic regressions to examine the association between plan-level cost sharing (no cost sharing, $0; low cost sharing, >$0-<$200; and high cost sharing, ≥$200 out-of-pocket cost) for any long-acting reversible contraceptive insertion and contraceptive use patterns and short interpregnancy interval rates, controlling for age, household income, race and ethnicity, region, and insurance plan type. RESULTS: Among 25,298 plans with cost sharing data, we identified 172,941 women with continuous enrollment for 12 months postpartum, including 82,500 (47.7%) in no cost sharing, 22,595 (13.1%) in low cost sharing, and 67,846 (39.2%) in high cost sharing plans. The percentage of postpartum women in the study sample using any prescription contraceptive method was 39.5% by 3 months, 43.8% by 6 months, and 46.0% by 12 months. At all time points, postpartum women in no cost sharing plans had a higher predicted probability of long-acting reversible contraceptive use (eg, at 12 months: no cost sharing, 22.0%; low cost-sharing, 17.5%; high cost sharing, 18.3%; P<.001) and a lower predicted probability of no prescription method use (eg, at 12 months: no cost sharing, 51.8%; low cost sharing, 55.0%; high cost sharing, 54.9%; P<.001) than those in low or high cost sharing plans. Predicted probabilities of female sterilization and other hormonal method use did not differ substantively by plan cost sharing for long-acting reversible contraception at any time point. The proportion of women experiencing a short interpregnancy interval was low (1.9% by 3 months, 1.9% by 6 months, 2.0% by 12 months) and did not differ by plan cost sharing for long-acting reversible contraception at any time point. CONCLUSION: Out-of-pocket costs for long-acting reversible contraception influence the method of contraception used by postpartum women with employer-based insurance. Eliminating financial barriers to long-acting reversible contraception access after childbirth may help women initiate their preferred method and increase the use of long-acting reversible contraceptives among interested women who otherwise might utilize less effective methods.

Impact of co-payment level increase of antidiabetic medications on glycaemic control: an interrupted time-series study among Finnish patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: A new special reimbursement scheme (SRS) for non-insulin medications used for treatment of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes (T2D) was implemented in Finland on January 1, 2017. The new SRS affected all community-dwelling Finnish T2D patients as all community-dwelling residents are eligible for reimbursement for prescription medications. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of this co-payment increase on glycaemic control among Finnish T2D patients. METHODS: Data on glycaemic control were collected with HbA1c measures from electronic health records from primary health care and specialized care in the North Karelia region, Finland, from patients with a confirmed T2D diagnosis in 2012 who were alive on January 1, 2017 (n = 8436). Average HbA1c levels were measured monthly 36 months before and 33 months after the policy change. Consumption of diabetes medications was measured with defined daily doses (DDDs) based on reimbursed medication purchases. Interrupted time series design analysed with segmented regression model was applied to examine the effect of the policy change on average HbA1c levels. RESULTS: Eight thousand one hundred forty-three T2D patients had at least one HbA1c measurement within 01/2014-9/2019. Mean age of the patients was 68.1 (SD 11.3) years and 53.0% were women. Average time since T2D diagnosis was 11.5 (SD 6.1) years. An estimated increase of 0.81 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.04-1.58) mmol/mol in average HbA1c levels was detected at the time of the policy change. In subgroup analyses, strongest effects were detected among patients who used only other diabetes medications than insulin or metformin in 2016 (3.56 mmol/mol, 95% CI 2.50-4.62). Meanwhile, yearly consumption of diabetes medications decreased slightly from 618.9 (SD 487.8) DDDs/patient in 2016 to 602.9 (SD 475.6) DDDs/patient in 2017 (p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneously with the increase of the co-payment level, the average HbA1c level increased among T2D patients from the North Karelia region, Finland. This may be explained by the decreased consumption of diabetes medications between 2016 and 2017. Special attention should be allocated to glycaemic control of patients utilizing only other antidiabetic medications than metformin or insulin.

Health Benefits In 2020: Premiums In Employer-Sponsored Plans Grow 4 Percent; Employers Consider Responses To Pandemic.

The annual Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Health Benefits Survey is the benchmark survey of the cost and coverage of employer-sponsored health benefits in the United States. The 2020 survey was designed and largely fielded before the full extent of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had been felt by employers. Data collection took place from mid-January through July, with half of the interviews being completed in the first three months of the year. Most of the key metrics that we measure-including premiums and cost sharing-reflect employers' decisions made before the full impacts of the pandemic were felt. We found that in 2020 the average annual premium for single coverage rose 4 percent, to $7,470, and the average annual premium for family coverage also rose 4 percent, to $21,342. Covered workers, on average, contributed 17 percent of the cost for single coverage and 27 percent of the cost for family coverage. Fifty-six percent of firms offered health benefits to at least some of their workers, and 64 percent of workers were covered at their own firm. Many large employers reported having "very broad" provider networks, but many recognized that their largest plan had a narrower network for mental health providers.

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.

Carve-out plan financial requirements associated with national behavioral health parity.

OBJECTIVES: To examine changes in carve-out financial requirements (copayments, coinsurance, use of deductibles, and out-of-pocket maxima) following the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). DATA SOURCE/STUDY SETTING: Specialty mental health benefit design information for employer-sponsored carve-out plans from a national managed behavioral health organization's claims processing engine (2008-2013). STUDY DESIGN: This pre-post study reports linear and logistic regression as the main analysis. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: NA. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Copayments for in-network emergency room (-$44.9, 95% CI: -78.3, -11.5; preparity mean: $56.2), outpatient services (eg, individual psychotherapy: -$7.4, 95% CI: -10.5, -4.2; preparity mean: $17.8), and out-of-network coinsurance for emergency room (-11 percentage points, 95% CI: -16.7, -5.4; preparity mean: 38.8 percent) and outpatient (eg, individual psychotherapy: -5.8 percentage points, 95% CI: -10.0, -1.6; preparity mean 41.0 percent) decreased. Probability of family OOP maxima use (29 percentage points, 95% CI: 19.3, 38.6; preparity mean: 36 percent) increased. In-network outpatient coinsurance increased (eg, individual psychotherapy: 4.5 percentage points, 95% CI: 1.1, 7.9; preparity mean: 2.7 percent), as did probability of use of family deductibles (15 percentage points, 95% CI: 6.1, 23.3; preparity mean: 38 percent). CONCLUSIONS: MHPAEA was associated with increased generosity in most financial requirements observed here. However, increased use of deductibles may have reduced generosity for some patients.

Medication Use and Health Care Utilization After a Cost-sharing Increase in Schizophrenia: A Nationwide Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Increases in prescription drug cost-sharing may decrease adherence to treatment among persons with schizophrenia and lead to discontinuation of use and an increased risk of hospitalization. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of new deductible and increased drug copayments implemented on antipsychotic and other drug purchases and on rates of hospitalizations and primary care contacts among persons with schizophrenia in Finland. RESEARCH DESIGN: Interrupted time series analysis. SUBJECTS: All persons with schizophrenia in Finland who were alive at the beginning of 2015 (N=41,017). MEASURES: We measured the rates of antipsychotic, other psychotropic and cardiometabolic drug purchasers, hospitalizations, and primary care contacts during 2015 and 2016 with data collected from several nationwide health care registers. RESULTS: During 2016, the proportion of antipsychotic purchasers decreased by -0.26 percentage points per month [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.47 to -0.05] compared with 2015. The trend of other psychotropic purchasers decreased to -0.13 percentage points per month in 2016 (95% CI: -0.22 to -0.04) compared with 2015 and cardiometabolic drug purchases to -0.17 percentage points per month (95% CI: -0.29 to -0.05) compared with 2015. The decreasing trend of psychiatric hospitalizations in 2015 halted in 2016. There were no other significant differences in health care utilization. CONCLUSIONS: In our nationwide time-series analysis, we observed decreases in the slopes of antipsychotic and other drug purchases of persons with schizophrenia after prescription drug cost-sharing increase implementation on January 1, 2016. Policymakers need to be aware of the unintended consequences of increasing cost-sharing among people with severe mental disorders.

Savings or Selection? Initial Spending Reductions in the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Considerations for Reform.

Policy Points Concerns have been raised about risk selection in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). Specifically, turnover in accountable care organization (ACO) physicians and patient panels has led to concerns that ACOs may be earning shared-savings bonuses by selecting lower-risk patients or providers with lower-risk panels. We find no evidence that changes in ACO patient populations explain savings estimates from previous evaluations through 2015. We also find no evidence that ACOs systematically manipulated provider composition or billing to earn bonuses. The modest savings and lack of risk selection in the original MSSP design suggest opportunities to build on early progress. Recent program changes provide ACOs with more opportunity to select providers with lower-risk patients. Understanding the effect of these changes will be important for guiding future payment policy. CONTEXT: The Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) establishes incentives for participating accountable care organizations (ACOs) to lower spending for their attributed fee-for-service Medicare patients. Turnover in ACO physicians and patient panels has raised concerns that ACOs may be earning shared-savings bonuses by selecting lower-risk patients or providers with lower-risk panels. METHODS: We conducted three sets of analyses of Medicare claims data. First, we estimated overall MSSP savings through 2015 using a difference-in-differences approach and methods that eliminated selection bias from ACO program exit or changes in the practices or physicians included in ACO contracts. We then checked for residual risk selection at the patient level. Second, we reestimated savings with methods that address undetected risk selection but could introduce bias from other sources. These included patient fixed effects, baseline or prospective assignment, and area-level MSSP exposure to hold patient populations constant. Third, we tested for changes in provider composition or provider billing that may have contributed to bonuses, even if they were eliminated as sources of bias in the evaluation analyses. FINDINGS: MSSP participation was associated with modest and increasing annual gross savings in the 2012-2013 entry cohorts of ACOs that reached $139 to $302 per patient by 2015. Savings in the 2014 entry cohort were small and not statistically significant. Robustness checks revealed no evidence of residual risk selection. Alternative methods to address risk selection produced results that were substantively consistent with our primary analysis but varied somewhat and were more sensitive to adjustment for patient characteristics, suggesting the introduction of bias from within-patient changes in time-varying characteristics. We found no evidence of ACO manipulation of provider composition or billing to inflate savings. Finally, larger savings for physician group ACOs were robust to consideration of differential changes in organizational structure among non-ACO providers (eg, from consolidation). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in the original MSSP program was associated with modest savings and not with favorable risk selection. These findings suggest an opportunity to build on early progress. Understanding the effect of new opportunities and incentives for risk selection in the revamped MSSP will be important for guiding future program reforms.

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.

Medicare Part D and Cost-Sharing for Antiretroviral Therapy and Preexposure Prophylaxis.

Importance: The 2019 federal Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative requires a vast expansion of access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) and preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV treatment and prevention. However, high prices for ART and PrEP can reduce their affordability and use. Medicare covers 1 in 4 persons living with HIV, and the Medicare Part D drug benefit imposes complicated cost-sharing between patients and other stakeholders. Objective: To determine how the Medicare Part D design distributes the cost burden for ART and PrEP between patients, insurance plans, manufacturers, and Medicare. Design and Setting: Nationwide cross-sectional analyses of first quarter 2019 Medicare formulary and pricing files for 3326 Part D plans were performed. These files contain drug benefit data, including prices and cost-sharing requirements. Main Outcomes and Measures: For 18 ART and 2 PrEP regimens, the out-of-pocket costs for patients and the cost borne by plans, manufacturers, and Medicare were projected for 1 year of treatment or prevention under a 2019 standard Medicare Part D insurance plan. Analyses assumed that patients used the ART or PrEP regimen and no other medications. Results: In 2019, ART prices ranged from $24 010 to $46 770 annually (median price, $35 780), with patients projected to pay 9% to 14% of the cost ($3270-$4350), insurance plans 18% to 24% ($5340-$8450), manufacturers 6% to 11% ($2370-$2750), and Medicare 53% to 67% ($12 770-$31 270). The price of PrEP was $20 570 annually, with patients contributing 15% ($2990), insurance plans 22% ($4570), manufacturers 13% ($2750), and Medicare 50% ($10 260). For beneficiaries with low-income subsidies that cover all patient cost-sharing, Medicare would assume 67% to 76% of ART costs and 65% of PrEP costs. Conclusions and Relevance: Medicare Part D mandates universal ART and PrEP coverage, but high prices (>$35 000 annually for ART and>$20 000 annually for PrEP) and the design of Part D can jeopardize affordability for patients and place most of the cost burden on taxpayers. Under a standard Medicare Part D benefit, patients pay $3000 to $4000 out-of-pocket yearly, unless they qualify for low-income subsidies, and half to two-thirds of the cost of ART and PrEP is borne by Medicare rather than insurance plans or manufacturers. To end the HIV epidemic by 2030, it appears that policies must address both high drug prices and revamp Medicare Part D cost-sharing.