Decision for Carpal Tunnel Surgery: High-deductible Health Plans versus Traditional Health Plans
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sanders H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10906623 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesOpioid-related overdose is a public health emergency in the United States. Meanwhile, high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) have become more prevalent in the United States over the last 2 decades, raising concern about their potential for discouraging high-need populations, like those with opioid use disorder (OUD), from engaging in care that may mitigate the probability of overdose. This study assesses the impact of an employer offering an HDHP on nonfatal opioid overdose among commercially insured individuals with OUD in the United States.Research designWe used deidentified insurance claims data from 2007 to 2017 with 97,788 person-years. We used an intent-to-treat, difference-in-differences regression framework to estimate the change in the probability of a nonfatal opioid overdose among enrollees with OUD whose employers began offering an HDHP insurance option during the study period compared with the change among those whose employer never offered an HDHP. We also used an event-study model to account for dynamic time-varying treatment effects.ResultsAcross both comparison and treatment groups, 2% of the sample experienced a nonfatal opioid overdose during the study period. Our primary model and robustness checks revealed no impact of HDHP offer on the probability of a nonfatal overdose.ConclusionsOur study suggests that HDHP offer was not associated with an observed increase in the probability of nonfatal opioid overdose among commercially insured person-years with OUD. However, given the strong evidence that medications for OUD (MOUD) can reduce the risk of overdose, research should explore which facets of insurance design may impact MOUD use.
| S-EPMC10527154 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:High-deductible health plan (HDHP) enrollment is expanding rapidly and might substantially increase out-of-pocket (OOP) payment burden. We examined trends in total and OOP health service expenditures overall and by insurance coverage type among women with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS:We used a longitudinal time series design to examine measures among 5364 women with metastatic breast cancer insured by a large US health insurer from 2004 to 2011. We measured outcomes during the 12 months after a first identified metastatic breast cancer diagnosis and required women to have at least 6 months of prior enrollment. We plotted enrollment measures and adjusted total and OOP spending. We fit trend lines using linear autoregressive models. RESULTS:Between 2004 and 2011, the percentage of women with metastatic breast cancer enrolled in employer-mandated HDHPs increased from 8 to 23% while the percentage enrolled in employer-mandated low-deductible plans (LDHPs) decreased from 69 to 37%. Over the same time period, estimated annual inflation-adjusted total health service spending among women with metastatic breast cancer whose employers only offered HDHPs or LDHPS increased from $96,899 to $104,688 (increase of $1197 per year; 95% confidence interval [CI]: $47,$2,348). Corresponding OOP spending values among these women with employer-mandated deductible levels were $4,496 and $5,151 ($91 per year trend; 95% CI -$13,$195). From 2004-2011, women in HDHPs and LDHPs had unchanged annual OOP spending, estimated at of $6642 (95% CI $6,268,$7016) and $4,247 (95% CI $3956,$4538), respectively. Thus, women in HDHPs experienced 55% (44%, 66%) more OOP spending than women in LDHP. CONCLUSIONS:OOP spending among women with metastatic breast cancer and employer-mandated deductible levels was 55% higher among HDHP than LDHP members, and employer-mandated HDHP enrollment increased substantially from 2004 to 2011. Stakeholders and policymakers should design health plans that protect financially vulnerable cancer patients from high OOP costs.
| S-EPMC6190701 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine whether high-deductible health plans are related to patient complexity, health services use, and medical care costs among substance use treatment patients.Data source/study settingElectronic health record data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California; 2007-2011.Study designRetrospective analysis of electronic health record data of substance use treatment patients (N = 31,001). We examined relationship of patient demographics, health comorbidities, and services use and cost to deductible level: none, low ($1-$999), and high (≥$1,000).MethodsDemographic, membership, diagnostic, and utilization data were merged with cost data. Utilization and costs were summarized into 6-month intervals. Generalized estimation methods for repeated measures with logistic, Poisson, and linear regression were used.Principal findingsSubstance use patients with deductible plans were younger and had less comorbidity than those without deductibles. Patients with high deductibles had lower emergency room and hospital use 12- to 6-month pretreatment, but rates became similar to other groups in the 6 months immediately prior to treatment; treatment costs were similar.ConclusionImmediately prior to entering treatment, substance use patients with and without high deductibles have similar patterns of health services utilization. We discuss implications for health policy and treatment, particularly in an era of health reform.
| S-EPMC5034209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHigh-deductible health plans (HDHPs) have been shown to delay timing of breast and colon cancer screening, although the relationship to the timing of cancer surgery is unknown. The objective of this study was to characterize timing of surgery for breast and colon cancer patients undergoing cancer operations following routine screening.Study designData from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims Database from 2007 to 2016 were queried to identify patients who underwent screening mammogram and/or colonoscopy. The calendar quarters of screening and surgery were analyzed with ordinal logistic regression. The time from screening to surgery (time to surgery, TTS) was evaluated using a Cox proportional hazard function.ResultsAmong 32,562,751 patients who had screening mammograms, 0.7% underwent breast cancer surgery within the following year. Among 9,325,238 patients who had screening colonoscopies, 0.9% were followed by colon cancer surgery within a year. The odds of screening (OR 1.146 for mammogram, 1.272 for colonoscopy; p < 0.001) and surgery (OR 1.120 for breast surgery, 1.219 for colon surgery; p < 0.001) increased each quarter for HDHPs compared to low-deductible health plans. Enrollment in an HDHP was not associated with a difference in TTS. Screening in Q3 or Q4 was associated with shorter TTS compared to screening in Q1 (hazard ratio 1.061 and 1.046, respectively; p < 0.001).ConclusionsHDHPs were associated with delays in screening and surgery. However, HDHPs were not associated with delays in TTS. Interventions to improve cancer care outcomes in the HDHP population should concentrate on reducing barriers to timely screening.
| S-EPMC11585011 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePreventing diabetes complications requires monitoring and control of hyperglycemia and cardiovascular risk factors. Switching to high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) has been shown to hinder aspects of diabetes care; however, the association of HDHP enrollment with microvascular and macrovascular diabetes complications is unknown.ObjectiveTo examine the association between an employer-required switch to an HDHP and incident complications of diabetes.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used deidentified administrative claims data for US adults with diabetes enrolled in employer-sponsored health plans between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019. Data analysis was performed from May 26, 2022, to January 2, 2024.ExposuresAdults with a baseline year of non-HDHP enrollment who had to switch to an HDHP because their employer offered no non-HDHP alternative in that year were compared with adults who were continuously enrolled in a non-HDHP.Main outcomes and measuresMixed-effects logistic regression models examined the association between switching to an HDHP and, individually, the odds of myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, lower-extremity complication, end-stage kidney disease, proliferative retinopathy, treatment for retinopathy, and blindness. Models were adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and medications, with inverse propensity score weighting used to account for potential selection bias.ResultsThe study included 42 326 adults who switched to an HDHP (mean [SD] age, 52 [10] years; 19 752 [46.7%] female) and 202 729 adults who did not switch (mean [SD] age, 53 [10] years; 89 828 [44.3%] female). Those who switched to an HDHP had greater odds of experiencing all diabetes complications (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.16 for myocardial infarction; OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.09-1.21 for stroke; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.30-1.41 for hospitalization for heart failure; OR, 2.53; 95% CI, 2.38-2.70 for end-stage kidney disease; OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 2.17-2.29 for lower-extremity complication; OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.13-1.21 for proliferative retinopathy; OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 2.18-2.54 for blindness; and OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 2.15-2.41 for retinopathy treatment).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that an employer-driven switch to an HDHP was associated with increased odds of experiencing all diabetes complications. These findings reinforce the potential harm associated with HDHPs for people with diabetes and the importance of affordable and accessible chronic disease management, which is hindered by high out-of-pocket costs incurred by HDHPs.
| S-EPMC10960199 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo 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 sourcesAdministrative 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 designI 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 collectionFrom the HCCI sample, childbearing women enrolled in an employer-sponsored plan with at least 10 people.Principal findingsSwitching 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.ConclusionsPrices 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.
| S-EPMC8763287 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To investigate whether enrollment in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) led enrollees to choose lower-priced providers for office visits and laboratory tests. STUDY SETTING:Claims data from more than 40 large employers. STUDY DESIGN:We compared the change in price for office visits and laboratory tests for enrollees who switched to HDHPs versus enrollees who remained in traditional plans. We estimated separate models for enrollees who changed providers versus those who remained with the same provider to disentangle the effects of HDHPs on provider choice and negotiated prices. DATA COLLECTION:Claims data from 2004 to 2010 on 1.8 million enrollees. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:After enrollment in HDHPs, 28 percent of enrollees changed physicians for office visits (compared to 19 percent in the Traditional Plan group, p < .01); however, this did not result in a statistically significant reduction in price for office visits. About 25 percent of enrollees changed providers for laboratory tests (compared to 23 percent in the Traditional Plan group, p < .01), resulting in savings of about $2.09 or a 12.8 percent reduction in price per laboratory test. We found that HDHPs had lower negotiated prices for office visits but not for laboratory tests. CONCLUSIONS:High-deductible health plan enrollment may shift enrollees to lower cost providers, resulting in modest savings.
| S-EPMC6056587 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCarpal tunnel release (CTR) is a surgical treatment option for patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) symptoms that are unresponsive to conservative treatment. Most patients experience symptomatic relief after CTR regardless of the surgical technique. However, direct comparisons of the safety and effectiveness between CTR surgical techniques are limited. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial is to compare the safety and effectiveness of CTR with ultrasound guidance (CTR-US) versus mini-open CTR (mOCTR) in subjects with symptomatic CTS.Design and methodsTUTOR (Trial of Ultrasound guided CTR versus Traditional Open Release) is a randomized controlled trial in which 120 subjects at up to 12 sites in the United States will be randomized (2:1) to receive CTR-US or mOCTR. The primary endpoint of the study is the percentage of patients who return to normal daily activities within 3 days of the procedure. Secondary endpoints of the study are median time to return to normal daily activities, percentage of patients who return to work within 3 days of the procedure, median time to return to work, Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire Symptom Severity Scale (BCTQ-SSS) change score at 3 months, BCTQ Functional Status Scale (BCTQ-FSS) change score at 3 months, Numeric Pain Scale change score at 3 months, EuroQoL-5 Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) change score at 3 months, and the incidence of device- or procedure-related adverse events at 3 months. Patient follow-up in this trial will continue for 1 year.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by a central institutional review board and ongoing trial oversight will be provided by a data safety monitoring board (DSMB). The authors intend to report the results of this trial at medical conferences and peer-reviewed journals. The outcomes of TUTOR will have important clinical and economic implications for all stakeholders involved in treating patients with CTS.Study registrationClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov): NCT05405218.Level of evidence1.
| S-EPMC9575820 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHigh-deductible health plans (HDHPs) are of high interest to employers, policy makers, and insurers because of potential benefits and risks of this fundamentally new coverage model.ObjectiveTo investigate the impact of HDHPs on health care utilization and costs in a heterogeneous group of enrollees from a variety of individual and employer-based health plans.DataClaims and member data from a major insurer and zip code-level census data.Study designRetrospective difference-in-differences analyses were used to examine the impact of HDHP plans. This analytical approach compared changes in utilization and expenditures over time (2007 versus 2005) across the two comparison groups (HDHP switchers versus matched PPO controls).ResultsIn two-part models, HDHP enrollment was associated with reduced emergency room use, increases in prescription medication use, and no change in overall outpatient expenditures. The impact of HDHPs on utilization differed by subgroup. Chronically ill enrollees and those who clearly had a choice of plans were more likely to increase utilization in specific categories after switching to an HDHP plan.ConclusionsWhether HDHPs are associated with lower costs is far from settled. Various subgroups of enrollees may choose HDHPs for different reasons and react differently to plan incentives.
| S-EPMC3034267 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe financial burden of a cancer diagnosis is increasing rapidly with advances in cancer care. Simultaneously, more individuals are enrolling in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) vs traditional insurance than ever before.ObjectiveTo characterize the out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs) of cancer care for individuals in HDHPs vs traditional insurance plans.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used the administrative claims data of a single national insurer in the US for 134 826 patients aged 18 to 63 years with a new diagnosis of breast, colorectal, lung, or other cancer from 2008 to 2018 with 24 months or more of continuous enrollment. Propensity score matching was performed to create comparator groups based on the presence or absence of an incident cancer diagnosis.ExposuresA new cancer diagnosis and enrollment in an HDHP vs a traditional health insurance plan.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was OOPCs among individuals with breast, colon, lung, or all other types of cancer combined compared with those with no cancer diagnosis. A triple difference-in-differences analysis was performed to identify incremental OOPCs based on cancer diagnosis and enrollment in HDHPs vs traditional plans.ResultsAfter propensity score matching, 134 826 patients remained in each of the cancer (73 572 women [55%]; median age, 53 years [IQR, 46-58 years]; 110 071 non-Hispanic White individuals [82%]) and noncancer (66 619 women [49%]; median age, 53 years [IQR, 46-59 years]; 105 023 non-Hispanic White individuals [78%]) cohorts. Compared with baseline costs of medical care among individuals without cancer, a breast cancer diagnosis was associated with the highest incremental OOPC ($714.68; 95% CI, $664.91-$764.45), followed by lung ($475.51; 95% CI, $340.16-$610.86), colorectal ($361.41; 95% CI, $294.34-$428.48), and all other types of cancer combined ($90.51; 95% CI, $74.22-$106.79). Based on the triple difference-in-differences analysis, compared with patients without cancer enrolled in HDHPs, those with breast cancer paid $1683.36 in additional yearly OOPCs (95% CI, $1576.66-$1790.07), those with colorectal cancer paid $1420.06 more (95% CI, $1232.31-$1607.80), those with lung cancer paid $467.25 more (95% CI, $130.13-$804.37), and those with other types of cancer paid $550.87 more (95% CI, $514.75-$586.99).Conclusions and relevancePatients with cancer and private insurance experienced sharp increases in OOPCs compared with those without cancer, which was amplified among those with HDHPs. These findings illustrate the degree to which HDHPs offer poorer protection than traditional insurance against unexpected health care expenses. Coupled with the increasing cost of cancer care, higher cost sharing in the form of increasing enrollment in HDHPs requires further research on the potential clinical consequences through delayed or foregone care.
| S-EPMC8696568 | biostudies-literature