Legitimacy of Cost Concern for Health Insurance Coverage of Gender-Affirming Surgeries: Comparison of the Interest in Keeping Insurance Cost Down versus the Cost-Effectiveness of Including Gender-Affirming Surgeries in Employer Health Insurance Plans.

This RCD discusses the recent development in Lange v Houston County. In this case, the United States District Court for The Middle District Of Georgia Macon Division found that an Exclusion Policy, prohibiting health insurance coverage of gender-affirming surgery for an employee, Anna Lange, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. On appeal, the Defendants argued that the District Court erred in its decision and relied on the cost burden of gender-affirming surgery as one of their defenses. This RCD highlights that cost is a common defense tactic used by defendants in these cases. However, the author argues that these concerns are unfounded and meritless given the cost-effectiveness of including gender-affirming surgeries in health insurance plans, as highlighted in the RCD.

Trends in Reported Health Care Affordability for Men and Women With Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Coverage in the US, 2000 to 2020.

This study uses National Health Interview Survey data from 2000 to 2020 to examine reported differences between US men and women aged 19 to 64 years with employer-sponsored insurance in obtaining affordable health care.

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.

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.

An investigation of health insurance policy and behavior in a virtual environment.

We introduce a new experimental approach to measuring the effects of health insurance policy alternatives on behavior and health outcomes over the life course. In a virtual environment with multi-period lives, subjects earn virtual income and allocate spending, to maximize utility, which is converted into cash payment. We compare behavior across age, income and insurance plans-one priced according to an individual's expected cost and the other uniformly priced through employer-implemented cost sharing. We find that 1) subjects in the employer-implemented plan purchased insurance at higher rates; 2) the employer-based plan reduced differences due to income and age; 3) subjects in the actuarial plan engaged in more health-promoting behaviors, but still below optimal levels, and did save at the level required, so did realize the full benefits of the plan. Subjects had more difficulty optimizing choices in the Actuarial treatment, because it required more long term planning and evaluating benefits that compounded over time. Contrary, to model predictions, the actuarial priced insurance plan did not increase utility relative to the employer-based plan.

Willingness to Pay for Social Health Insurance and Its Predictors among Government Employees in Mujja Town, Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: Social health insurance is one of the possible organizational mechanisms for raising and pooling funds to finance health services, private health insurance, community insurance, and others. OBJECTIVE: The study was aimed to assess willingness to pay for social health insurance and associated factors among government employees in Mujja town, Ethiopia. METHODS: An institutional-based cross-sectional study was conducted on the total sample size of 375 study respondents. A simple random sampling technique was employed. Data were entered into EPI info 7 and analyzed by Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 22.0. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors by controlling confounding variables. Statistical significance was declared at p < 0.05. RESULTS: This study revealed that 37.6% (95% CI: 33.1%, 42.61%) respondents were willing to pay for social health insurance. In the final model, respondents who ever heard about health insurance schemes were seven times (AOR = 7.205; 95% CI: 1.385, 37.475) more likely willing to pay for social health insurance. Thos who had history of difficulty and having other source to cover medical bills were 92.6% (AOR = 0.074; 95% CI: 0.009, 0.612) and 94.6% (AOR = 0.054; 95% CI: 0.011, 0.257) less likely to pay, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Willingness to pay for social health insurance was low. Being heard about health insurance, history of difficulty, and having other sources to cover medical bills were associated factors. Thus, it is recommended that media promotion and these factors should be considered for the successful implementation of the scheme.

An Analysis of a Commercial Database on the Use of Erectile Dysfunction Treatments for Men With Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the annual erectile dysfunction (ED) prevalence among men enrolled in an employer-sponsored health insurance (ESHI) plan and evaluate ED treatment profiles among those with an ED diagnosis. METHODS: A cross-sectional claims analysis was conducted using the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database, a nationally representative sample of US workers enrolled in ESHI plans. Patients aged 18-64 with at least one ED medical diagnosis claim and continuous enrollment in a given year between 2009 and 2017 were included. Among those with an ED diagnosis, utilization rates of the following ED treatments were determined: phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5I), penile prosthesis implantation, other ED treatments (eg, vacuum pump, intraurethral suppositories), combination treatment, and no insurer-paid treatments. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2017, the annual prevalence of men with ESHI suffering from ED increased by 116%. However, in 2017, only 23% of men with an ED diagnosis received an ED therapy paid for by their ESHI plans. The proportion of men taking PDE5Is ranged from 18% in 2012 to 26% in 2015. The proportion of men with ED undergoing penile prosthesis implantation has declined in recent years (0.23% in 2009 to 0.11% in 2017). Similarly, the rate of men who received other ED treatments or combination treatment has decreased from 2009 to 2017 (0.94%-0.30% and 0.65%-0.19%, respectively). CONCLUSION: ED prevalence among men insured by an ESHI plan has notably increased, yet approximately three-quarters of these men had no claims for ED treatments, indicating substantial access gaps to treatment.

Return to Work: Managing Employee Population Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has abruptly transformed the outlook of employer health benefits plans for 2020 and 2021. Containing the spread of the virus and facilitating care of those infected have quickly emerged as immediate priorities. Employers have adjusted health benefits coverage to make COVID-19 testing and treatment accessible and remove barriers to care in order to facilitate the containment of the disease. Employers also are introducing strategies focused on testing, surveillance, workplace modifications, and hygiene to keep workforces healthy and workplaces safe. This paper is intended to provide evidence-based perspectives for self-insured employers for managing population health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such considerations include (1) return to work practices focused on mitigating the spread of COVID-19 through safety practices, testing and surveillance; and (2) anticipating the impact of COVID-19 on health benefits and costs (including adaptations in delivery of care, social and behavioral health needs, and managing interrupted care for chronic conditions).

Effect of Carving in Pharmacy Benefits on Utilization and Costs.

BACKGROUND: Rising medical costs are a significant concern for employers offering health benefits to employees, and there is interest in identifying insurance plan designs that optimize the effect of pharmacy benefits on overall costs. For instance, employers must decide between plans that carve in pharmacy benefits (where medical and pharmacy benefits are integrated into 1 package through an insurer) versus plans that carve out pharmacy benefits (where pharmacy benefits are separately administered through a pharmacy benefit manager). Little is known about the effect of carving in pharmacy benefits on medical utilization and costs. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of carving in versus carving out pharmacy benefits on medical utilization, medical costs, and health management program participation in commercial health plans. METHODS: We performed a propensity score-matched analysis comparing carve-in and carve-out members of a regional health plan in 2018. Our primary outcomes were medical utilization (annual medical claims/1,000 members) and costs (medical costs per member per month [PMPM]). We categorized these into the following domains: inpatient, emergency department, outpatient/ambulatory surgery, urgent care, primary care, specialist services, and diagnostics (laboratory testing/imaging). We additionally assessed participation in health plan-based health management programs. RESULTS: We analyzed 9,633 carve-in members matched with 9,633 carve-out members. Compared with carving out pharmacy benefits, carving in was associated with 3.7% lower medical costs, with an $8.73 reduction in PMPM ($225.87 vs. $234.60), and no significant difference in medical utilization; significantly lower inpatient and urgent care claims (reduction of 9.29 claims/1,000 and 51.3 claims/1,000, respectively) and costs ($10.08 and $0.12 PMPM reduction, respectively); lower injectable medical therapy costs ($4.32 PMPM reduction); and higher durable medical equipment costs ($2.14 PMPM increase). Carve-in members also experienced 4.9% higher health management program participation. CONCLUSIONS: As employers attempt to understand the value of carving in versus carving out pharmacy benefits to health plans, our findings suggest that carving in pharmacy benefits is associated with reduced medical costs and hospitalizations. Our findings can assist in informing employer decision-making processes and, as a result, reducing costs of care. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Parekh was and Huang and Good are employed by the UPMC Centers for High-Value Health Care and Value-Based Pharmacy Initiatives. Manolis is employed by the UPMC Health Plan within the UPMC Insurance Services Division. Papa, Drnach, and Spiegel are employed by WorkPartners within the UPMC Insurance Services Division.

Financial Risk for COVID-19-like Respiratory Hospitalizations in Consumer-Directed Health Plans.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to quantify out-of-pocket spending associated with respiratory hospitalizations for conditions similar to those caused by coronavirus disease 2019 and to compare out-of-pocket spending differences among those enrolled in consumer-directed health plans and in traditional, low-deductible plans. METHODS: This study used deidentified administrative claims from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse (January 1, 2016-August 31, 2019) to identify patients with a respiratory hospitalization. It compared unadjusted out-of-pocket spending among consumer-directed health plan enrollees with that among traditional plan enrollees using difference of mean significance tests and repeated the analysis separately by age category and calendar year quarter. These data were collected on a rolling basis by OptumLabs and were analyzed in March 2020. RESULTS: Commercially insured consumer-directed health plan enrollees had significantly higher out-of-pocket spending than traditional plan enrollees, and these differences were largest among younger populations. The largest difference in out-of-pocket spending occurred during the first half of the year. CONCLUSIONS: Consumer-directed health plan enrollees may experience differential financial burden from a hospitalization related to coronavirus disease 2019. Although some insurers are waiving cost-sharing payments for coronavirus disease 2019 treatment, self-insured employers remain exempt. As of now, policy responses may be insufficient to reduce the financial burden on consumer-directed health plans enrollees with respiratory hospitalizations related to coronavirus disease 2019.

Employer and Plan Sponsor Views on Pharmacy Reimbursement.

DISCLOSURES: No funding was received for the writing of this commentary. Stull is employed by Employers Health, which is an employer-founded and employer-led group-purchasing organization with a focus on managing contracts for self-funded plan sponsors with PBMs. It also hosts educational conferences and events for which it receives sponsorships from a variety of health benefit suppliers, including pharmaceutical manufacturers, insurance carriers, PBMs and others. Gupton has nothing to disclose.

Contemporary Patterns of Third-line Treatments for Privately Insured Individuals With Overactive Bladder in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate utilization of third-line overactive bladder (OAB) treatments including percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS), sacral nerve stimulation (SNS), and intradetrusor botulinum toxin A (BTX) among privately insured patients and examine factors associated with their use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using MarketScan claims (2015-2017), we identified patients who underwent third-line OAB treatments based on procedure codes. Factors of interest included location, age, health plan, among others. We fit multivariable logistic regression models to estimate associations between pertinent factors with receipt of PTNS and SNS relative to BTX and associations between provider type and practice location with each treatment modality. RESULTS: We identified 7383 patients (mean age 50.9) in our cohort. SNS was used most frequently (n = 3602, 48.8%), while PTNS was used least frequently (n = 955, 12.9%). PTNS patients were more likely to reside in metropolitan areas (vs BTX: OR 1.6, 95%CI 1.3-2.1; vs SNS: OR 2.2, 95%CI 1.7-2.8), be aged 55 years or older (vs BTX: 54% vs 47%, OR 1.6, 95%CI 1.2-2.1; vs SNS: 54% vs 45%, OR 1.6, 95%CI 1.2-2.0), and be covered under a health maintenance organization (vs BTX: 17% vs 10%; vs SNS: 17% vs 10%, P <.01). Urologists were most likely to perform SNS, and gynecologists were most likely to perform BTX. 91% of PTNS procedures were performed in office settings. CONCLUSION: Among patients receiving third-line OAB treatment, PTNS was used infrequently. PTNS utilization was concentrated within urban areas, and among older patients and those covered by cost-conscious health maintenance organizations.

Utilization and Cost of an Employer-Sponsored Comprehensive Primary Care Delivery Model.

Importance: Primary care is increasingly delivered at or near workplaces, yet utilization and cost of employer-sponsored primary care services remain unknown. Objective: To compare the health care utilization and cost of an employer-sponsored on-site, near-site, and virtual comprehensive primary care service delivery model with those of traditional community-based primary care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study of 23 518 commercially insured employees and dependents of an engineering and manufacturing firm headquartered in southern California was performed from January 1, 2016, to July 1, 2019. A subset of the population with most (≥50%) primary care visits through employer-sponsored on-site, near-site, or virtual care clinics was matched to a subset not having most such visits through the employer-sponsored clinics using propensity score matching (n = 1983 each). In sensitivity analyses, employees were matched to dependents at neighboring firms that lacked access to the employer-sponsored primary care delivery model (additional n = 1680). Exposures: Integrated primary care, mental health, and physical therapy delivered through on-site, near-site, and virtual clinics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Utilization (inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, pharmaceutical, radiology, and laboratory visits per 1000 member-months) and spending (2019 costs per member per month in US dollars) by service type. Results: A total of 23 518 individuals (mean [SD] age, 27 [15] years; 14 604 [62.1%] male) were included in the full population sample and had been enrolled in the employer-sponsored health plan for a mean of 29 months (interquartile range, 14-48 months). Of eligible members, 5292 (22.5%) used the employer-sponsored services, with 2305 (9.8%) using them for most of their primary care. The mean (SD) cost of employer-sponsored service delivery was $87 ($32) per member month. Among the matched populations (mean [SD] age, 31 [11] years; 3349 [84.5%] male) of primary users vs control individuals, total spending was 45% lower per member per month (95% CI, 35%-55%; cost difference, -$167 per member per month; 95% CI, -$204 to -$130; P < .001) among users after adjustment. The lower spending was associated with lower spending on non-primary care services, such as emergency department (-33%; 95% CI, -44% to -22%) and hospital visits (-16%; 95% CI, -22% to -10%), despite higher spending on primary care (109%; 95% CI, 102%-116%) and mental health (20%; 95% CI, 13%-27%). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that individuals who used the models' services for most of their primary care had lower total spending despite higher primary care spending, which may be associated with self-selection of lower-risk persons to the employer-sponsored services and/or with the use of comprehensive primary care.

Medical Costs and Health Care Utilization Among Self-Insured Members with Carve-In Versus Carve-Out Pharmacy Benefits.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacy benefit can be purchased as part of an integrated medical and pharmacy health package-a carve-in model-or purchased separately and administered by an external pharmacy benefit manager-a carve-out model. Limited peer-reviewed information is available assessing differences in use and medical costs among carve-in versus carve-out populations. OBJECTIVE: To compare total medical costs per member per year (PMPY) and utilization between commercially self-insured members receiving carve-in to those receiving carve-out pharmacy benefits overall and by 7 chronic condition subgroups. METHODS: This study used deidentified data of members continuously enrolled in Cambia Health Solutions self-insured Blue plans without benefit changes from 2017 through 2018. Cambia covers 1.6 million members in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Utah. The medical cost PMPY comparison was performed using multivariable general linear regression with gamma distribution adjusting for age, gender, state, insured group size, case or disease management enrollment, 7 chronic diseases, risk score (illness severity proxy), and plan paid to total paid ratio (benefit richness proxy). Medical event objectives were assessed using multivariable logistic regression comparing odds of hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visit adjusting for the same covariates. Sensitivity analyses repeated the medical cost PMPY comparison excluding high-cost members, greater than $250,000 annually. Chronic condition subgroup analyses were performed using the same methods separately for members having asthma, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, diabetes mellitus, depression, and rheumatoid arthritis. RESULTS: There were 205,835 carve-in and 125,555 carve-out members meeting study criteria. Average age (SD) was 34.2 years (18.6) and risk score (SD) 1.1 (2.3) for carve-in versus 35.2 years (19.3) and 1.1 (2.4), respectively, for carve-out. Members with carve-in benefits had lower medical costs after adjustment (4%, P < 0.001), translating into an average $148 lower medical cost PMPY ($3,749 carve-out vs. $3,601 carve-in annualized). After adjustment, the carve-in group had an estimated 15% (P < 0.001) lower hospitalization odds and 7% (P < 0.001) lower ED visit odds. Of 7 chronic conditions, significantly lower costs (12%-17% lower), odds of hospitalization (22%-36% lower), and odds of ED visit (16%-20% lower) were found among members with carve-in benefits for 5 conditions (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that integrated, carve-in pharmacy and medical benefits are associated with lower medical costs, fewer hospitalizations, and fewer ED visits. This study focused on associations, and defining causation was not in scope. Possible reasons for these findings include plan access to both medical and pharmacy data and data-informed care management and coordination. Future research should include investigation of integrated data use and its effect across the spectrum of integrated health plan offerings, provider partnerships, and analytic strategies, as well as inclusion of analyzing pharmacy costs to encompass total cost of care. DISCLOSURES: This study received no external funding. The study was jointly conducted by employees of Cambia Health Solutions and Prime Therapeutics, a pharmacy benefit manager servicing Cambia Health Solutions. Smith, Lam, Lockwood, and Pegus are employees of Cambia Health Solutions. Qiu and Gleason are employees of Prime Therapeutics.