Oregon's Hospital Payment Cap and Enrollee Out-of-Pocket Spending and Service Use
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Murray R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC11344237 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10334293 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8463936 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reliable estimates of the lifetime risk of using a nursing home and the associated out-of-pocket costs are important for the saving decisions by individuals and families, and for the purchase of long-term care insurance. We used data on up to 18 y of nursing home use and out-of-pocket costs drawn from the Health and Retirement Study, a longitudinal household survey representative of the older US population. We accumulated the use and spending by individuals over many years, and we developed and used an individual-level matching method to account for use before and after the observation period. In addition, for forecasting, we estimated a dynamic parametric model of nursing home use and spending. We found that 56% of persons aged 57-61 will stay at least one night in a nursing home during their lifetimes, but only 32% of the cohort will pay anything out of pocket. Averaged over all persons, total out-of-pocket expenditures looking forward from age 57 were approximately $7,300, discounted at 3% per year. However, the 95th percentile of spending was almost $47,000. We conclude that the percentage of people ever staying in nursing homes is substantially higher than previous estimates, at least partly due to an increase in nursing home episodes of short duration. Average lifetime out-of-pocket costs may be affordable, but some people will incur much higher costs.
| S-EPMC5603996 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Medicare Part D has no cap on beneficiaries' out-of-pocket spending for outpatient prescription drugs, and, unlike Medicare Parts A and B, beneficiaries are prohibited from purchasing supplemental insurance that could provide such a cap. Historically, most beneficiaries whose annual Part D spending reached the catastrophic level were protected from unlimited personal liability by the Low-Income Subsidy (LIS). However, we found that the proportion of beneficiaries whose spending reached that level but did not qualify for the subsidy-and therefore remained liable for coinsurance-increased rapidly, from 18 percent in 2007 to 28 percent in 2015. Moreover, average total per person per year spending grew much more rapidly for those who did not qualify for the LIS than for those who did, primarily because of differences in price and utilization trends for the drugs that represented disproportionately large shares of their spending. We estimated that a cap for all Part D enrollees in 2015 would have raised monthly premiums by only $0.40-$1.31 per member.
| S-EPMC7268910 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceBy 2020, nearly all states had adopted oncology parity laws in the US, ensuring that patients in fully insured private health plans pay no more for orally administered anticancer medications (OAMs) than infused therapies. Between 2013 and mid-2017, 11 states implemented parity with out-of-pocket spending caps, which may further reduce patient out-of-pocket spending.ObjectiveTo compare OAM uptake and out-of-pocket and health plan spending on OAMs in states with parity with and without spending caps, as well as to assess out-of-pocket spending for caps that apply predeductible vs postdeductible.Design setting and participantsThis cohort study analyzed OAM users enrolled in commercial health plans offered by Aetna, Humana, and United Healthcare in the US from 2011 to 2017, aggregated by the Health Care Cost Institute, using difference-in-difference-in-differences (DDD) analysis. Data analysis was conducted between June and August 2020.ExposuresTime (before vs after parity), whether the state parity law included an out-of-pocket spending cap, and whether the plan was fully insured (subject to parity) or self-funded (not subject to parity). Among states with caps, out-of-pocket spending was also compared by whether the cap was applied predeductible and postdeductible vs only postdeductible.Main outcomes and measuresMonthly OAM prescription fills per 100 000 enrollees, per-OAM prescription-fill out-of-pocket spending, and annual per-user health plan spending on OAMs.ResultsIn this study of 23 states (11 with caps and 12 without) and 207 579 OAM prescription fills, caps were associated with a modest increase in OAM use (DDD, 7.40 [95% CI, 3.41-11.39] per 100 000 enrollees). There was no difference in mean out-of-pocket spending comparing fully insured and self-funded enrollees in states with vs without caps (DDD, -$17 [95% CI, -$57 to $24), but caps were associated with lower spending among OAM users in the 95th percentile of out-of-pocket spending by $831 (95% CI, -$871 to -$791) per OAM prescription fill. Caps applied predeductible were associated with greater out-of-pocket savings relative to caps applied only postdeductible. This included per-OAM prescription-fill savings at the 75th, 90th, and 95th percentiles. Postparity, mean annual spending on OAMs among users was $113 589 in states without caps and $102 252 in states with caps, with no differences between groups (DDD, $9799 [95% CI, -$4230 to $23 829).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, among states adopting oncology parity laws between 2013 and 2017, mean out-of-pocket spending per OAM prescription fill and mean health plan spending among OAM users was similar in states with and without caps. However, enrollees in states with parity plus out-of-pocket caps had greater reductions in out-of-pocket spending among the highest spenders. Caps may offer improved financial protection for the highest spenders without increasing mean health plan spending on OAMs.
| S-EPMC8796987 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this study, we analyzed healthcare provision and health expenditure across six Mediterranean countries that adopt the National Health System (Beveridge model) and that form part of the European Union (EU) with the main aim being that of analyzing and comparing out-of-pocket health spending in countries with a European Mediterranean connection. To this end, we considered various economic indicators and statistics to derive commonalities and differences across these countries and also compared trends in these indicators to those observed across the rest of the EU. We then analyzed these findings in light of other data related to the quality of healthcare delivery and the infrastructure of the health system and discussed recent developments in healthcare within each country and the main challenges faced by the respective health systems. The results show that on average, Mediterranean countries spend less on total healthcare expenditure (THE) than the EU average, both as a proportion of GDP, as well as in per capita terms. This is primarily driven by lower-than-EU-average public funding of healthcare. The 2008/2009 macro-economic and financial crisis had a significant impact on the countries under review, and explains the persistent reductions in public health spending as part of the austerity measures put in force across sectors. On the flipside, Mediterranean countries have a higher presence of private health providers in total funding, thereby explaining the higher Out-of-Pocket (OOPs) health expenditures in these countries relative to the EU-average. With regard to the overall health infrastructure in these countries, we observed that although the supply of physicians is largely in line with the rest of the EU, there is under-supply when it comes to hospital beds. This may be symptomatic of lower government funding. Nonetheless, all countries score highly in the evaluation of the quality of health services, as recorded by international rankings like the WHO's 2000 metric, whereas health system performance indicators, namely mortality rates and life expectancy reveal favorable health outcomes in the Mediterranean EU countries. The findings in this paper may be seen in light of the Mediterranean region's lifestyle in terms of diet, health behavior, health beliefs and shared culture. In particular, the higher out-of-pocket expenditure may reflect the tendency for one-to-one relationships with private clinicians and the pursuit of person-centered care (1). Additionally, the Mediterranean people may not be as disciplined as their European counterparts in accessing and using the public health sector. The lower THE also reflects the fact that the Mediterranean countries are less wealthy than the more economically-advanced European countries.
| S-EPMC5974227 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background: Patients are increasingly responsible for direct medical expenditures with a growth in out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses, which can impede access to care and affect treatment. This study aims to investigate the impact of capitation on OOP expenses for surgical and presurgical treatment for thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) joint arthritis. Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of thumb CMC arthritis who underwent surgery (2009-2016) comprised our study cohort. Sociodemographic data, total cost, and OOP expenses were collected at the time of surgery and 2 years prior. Patients were stratified by insurance type: fee-for-service (FFS), managed care (MC), Medicare-MC, and Medicare-FFS. Capitated plans were included in the MC and Medicare-MC groups. A generalized linear regression was performed to investigate the association between OOP expenses and insurance type. Results: Our cohort consisted of 7780 patients with FFS insurance, 953 with MC insurance, 2136 with Medicare-FFS, and 265 with Medicare-MC. There was no difference in total costs for FFS and MC (FFS $7281 vs. MC $7306, P = .73; Medicare-FFS $6663 vs. Medicare-MC $6183, P = .19). However, patients with FFS incurred significantly greater OOP costs (FFS $952 vs. MC $434, P < .01; Medicare-FFS $343 vs. Medicare-MC $232, P < .01). In the adjusted regression, MC, Medicare-FFS, and Medicare-MC had approximately 21% to 46% of the predicted OOP expenses of patients with FFS plans (P < .01). Conclusion: Despite similar total costs, OOP expenses were significantly greater for patients with FFS or Medicare-FFS insurance. With healthcare costs transitioning to patients, providers should consider cost sharing when conferring care to help alleviate the financial burden placed on patients.
| S-EPMC8647315 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Among privately insured children, the proportion of inflation-adjusted total health care spending accounted for by orphan drugs increased from 4.0 percent to 6.6 percent between 2013 and 2018. This increase was largely driven by price growth. Mean annual out-of-pocket spending for orphan drugs rose from $486 to $866 and was higher for children than adults.
| S-EPMC7968887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesIt is Ugandan governmental policy that all surgical care delivered at government hospitals in Uganda is to be provided to patients free of charge. In practice, however, frequent stock-outs and broken equipment require patients to pay for large portions of their care out of their own pocket. The purpose of this study was to determine the financial impact on patients who undergo surgery at a government hospital in Uganda.MethodsEvery surgical patient discharged from a surgical ward at a large regional referral hospital in rural southwestern Uganda over a 3-week period in April 2016 was asked to participate. Patients who agreed were surveyed to determine their baseline level of poverty and to assess the financial impact of the hospitalization. Rates of impoverishment and catastrophic expenditure were then calculated. An "impoverishing expense" is defined as one that pushes a household below published poverty thresholds. A "catastrophic expense" was incurred if the patient spent more than 10% of their average annual expenditures.ResultsWe interviewed 295 out of a possible 320 patients during the study period. 46% (CI 40-52%) of our patients met the World Bank's definition of extreme poverty ($1.90/person/day). After receiving surgical care an additional 10 patients faced extreme poverty, and 5 patients were newly impoverished by the World Bank's definition ($3.10/person/day). 31% of patients faced a catastrophic expenditure of more than 10% of their estimated total yearly expenses. 53% of the households in our study had to borrow money to pay for care, 21% had to sell possessions, and 17% lost a job as a result of the patient's hospitalization. Only 5% of our patients received some form of charity.Conclusions and relevanceDespite the government's policy to provide "free care," undergoing an operation at a government hospital in Uganda can result in a severe economic burden to patients and their families. Alternative financing schemes to provide financial protection are critically needed.
| S-EPMC5663485 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:With total and out-of-pocket spending for oral oncolytics rising, there is increased interest in choosing oncology treatments based on their clinical value relative to cost. OBJECTIVE:To determine if out-of-pocket spending varied for higher versus lower benefit oral oncology drugs reimbursed by commercial insurers. METHODS:This study was a retrospective analysis of commercial insurer prescription drug claims filed between 2007 and 2014 for 13 oral oncolytics approved before 2009. We calculated mean monthly out-of-pocket payment for each fill by patient. We then categorized oral oncolytics by their overall and progression-free survival benefits for each FDA-approved indication, using evidence from published studies. We assessed the relationship of survival benefit with mean monthly out-of-pocket payment, adjusting for demographic and plan characteristics. RESULTS:Our population included 44,113 patients aged 18-65 years (mean 52.5 [SD 9.4]) with a cancer diagnosis who filled 731,354 prescriptions. The most commonly represented oncolytics were imatinib (37.4% of fills), lenalidomide (17.7% of fills), and dasatinib (10.0% of fills). Approximately 32.3% of fills were for drug-indication pairs with an overall survival benefit of 4+ years. In adjusted analyses, there was no clear pattern to suggest that out-of-pocket payments differed with drug indication-specific survival benefits. Drugs for indications providing > 0 to 1 year of overall survival benefit were significantly more likely to have a lower out-of-pocket payment versus those prescribed off-label, but there were no significant differences in out-of-pocket payments between drugs and associated indications in any other survival category versus drugs used off-label. CONCLUSIONS:Out-of-pocket payments for oral oncolytics were not clearly related to indication-specific value in commercially insured patients. This finding suggests that despite increased attention to value- and indication-based drug pricing, cost sharing for oral oncolytics does not currently reflect these goals. DISCLOSURES:This project was supported by Research Scholar Grant RSGI-14-030-01-CPHPS from the American Cancer Society; the NIH Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health (BIRCWH) K12 Program; the North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute (UL1TR001111) Grant; and K24CA181510 from the National Cancer Institute. The authors have no disclosures. Data from this study were presented at the 2017 American Society for Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting on June 5, 2017, in Chicago, Illinois.
| S-EPMC6052860 | biostudies-literature