Trends in Insulin Out-of-Pocket Costs and Reimbursement Price Among US Patients With Private Health Insurance, 2006-2017.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Meiri A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7265120 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Trends in Insulin Out-of-Pocket Costs and Reimbursement Price Among US Patients With Private Health Insurance, 2006-2017.
Meiri Amir A Zhang Fang F Ross-Degnan Dennis D Wharam J Frank JF
JAMA internal medicine 20200701 7
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the effects of transitions from private to public health insurance by children on out-of-pocket medical expenditures and health insurance premium costs.Data sourcesData are drawn from the 1996 and 2001 panels of the Survey of Income and Program Participation. We construct a nationally representative, longitudinal sample of children, ages 0-18, and their families for the period 1998-2003, a period in which states raised public health insurance eligibility rates for children.Study designWe exploit the Survey of Income and Program Participation's longitudinal design to identify children in our sample who transition from private to public health insurance. We then use a bootstrapped instrumental variable approach to estimate the effects of these transitions on out-of-pocket expenditures and health insurance premium costs.Principal findingsChildren who transition from private to public coverage are relatively low-income, are disproportionately likely to live in single-mother households, and are more likely to be Black or of Hispanic origin. Child health status is highly predictive of transitions. We estimate that these transitions provide a cash-equivalent transfer of nearly U.S.$1,500 annually for families in the form of reduced out-of-pocket and health insurance premium costs.ConclusionsTransitions from private to public health coverage by children can bring important social benefits to vulnerable families. This suggests that instead of being a net societal cost, such transitions may provide an important social benefit.
| S-EPMC3097405 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess national trends in out-of-pocket (OOP) costs among adults aged 18-64 years with diabetes in the U.S.Research design and methodsUsing data from the 2001-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we estimated total per person annual OOP costs (insurance premiums, prescription drug costs, inpatient and outpatient deductibles, copays, and other payments not covered by insurance) and high OOP cost rate, defined as the percentage of people with OOP spending >10% of their family's pretax income. We examined trends overall, by subgroup (insurance type, income level, insulin use, size of patient's employer, and whether the patient was enrolled in a high deductible health plan), and by type of service. Changes in trends were identified using joinpoint analysis; costs were adjusted to 2017 U.S. dollars.ResultsFrom 2001 to 2017, OOP costs decreased 4.3%, from $4,328 to $4,139, and the high OOP cost rate fell 32%, from 28 to 19% (P < 0.001). Changes in the high OOP cost rate varied by subgroup, declining among those with public or no insurance and those with an income <200% of the federal poverty level (P < 0.001) but remaining stable among those with private insurance and higher income. Drug prescription OOP costs decreased among all subgroups (P < 0.001). Decreases in total (-$58 vs. -$37, P < 0.001) and prescription (-$79 vs. -$68, P < 0.001) OOP costs were higher among insulin users than noninsulin users.ConclusionsOOP costs among U.S. nonelderly adults with diabetes declined, especially among those least able to afford them. Future studies may explore factors contributing to the decline in OOP costs and the impact on the quality of diabetes care and complication rates.
| S-EPMC9578147 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTotal and out-of-pocket visit expenditures for primary care physician visits may affect how primary care is delivered. We determined trends in these expenditures for visits to US primary care physicians.MethodsUsing the 2002-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we ascertained changes in total and out-of-pocket visit expenditures for primary care visits for Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance. We calculated mean values for each insurer using a generalized linear model and a 2-part model, respectively.ResultsAnalyses were based on 750,837 primary care visits during 2002-2017. Over time, the proportion of primary care visits associated with private insurance or no insurance decreased, while Medicare- or Medicaid-associated visits increased. The proportion of visits with $0 out-of-pocket expenditure increased, primarily from an increase in $0 private insurance visits. Total expenditure per visit increased for private insurance and Medicare visits, but did not notably change for Medicaid visits. Out-of-pocket expenditures rose primarily from increases in private insurance visits with higher expenditures of this type. Medicare and Medicaid had minimal change in out-of-pocket expenditure per visit.ConclusionsBetween 2002 and 2017, mean total expenditures and out-of-pocket expenditures increased for primary care visits, but at notably lower rates than those previously documented for emergency department visits. A rise in total expenditure per visit was identified for private insurance and Medicare, but not for Medicaid. Out-of-pocket expenditures increased marginally related to changes in out-of-pocket expenditures for private insurance visits. We would expect increasing difficulty with primary care physician access, particularly for Medicaid patients, if the current trends continue.
| S-EPMC7489978 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Research from 2006 documented substantial variation in medication coverage for residents across Canada. Since then, some provinces have implemented major medication plan reforms. We aimed to update the information on publicly funded medication insurance plans available across Canada and to compare out-of-pocket costs across the country. METHODS:We compared provincial medication insurance plans using data from public websites and other public source documents. Using 2 hypothetical clinical examples, we determined the amount and type of a patient's out-of-pocket costs for 5 different patient subtypes that varied based on medication burden, age and income. RESULTS:Each province offers a plan to all residents. Cost-sharing is employed across all provinces. Some residents must pay a premium to receive insurance or must pay 100% of their medication costs until they reach a deductible amount, above which government funding covers a portion of medication costs. With the scenario of low medication burden (medication cost about $500), out-of-pocket costs ranged from $250 to $2100 for higher-income residents and from $0 to $700 for lower-income residents. With the scenario of high medication burden (medication cost about $1800), the corresponding ranges were $250-$2500 and $0-$1100. The variation was due to province of residence, age and income. INTERPRETATION:Variations in out-of-pocket payments continue to exist across the provinces, with some groups facing high expenses. Further work is required to understand the impact of different cost-sharing mechanisms, develop policies to limit out-of-pocket expenses and improve provincial drug plans.
| S-EPMC5741433 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAustralians have substantial out-of-pocket (OOP) health costs compared with other developed nations, even with universal health insurance coverage. This can significantly affect access to care and subsequent well-being, especially for priority populations including those on lower incomes or with multimorbidity and chronic illness. While it is known that high OOP healthcare costs may contribute to poorer health outcomes, it is not clear exactly how these expenses are experienced by people with chronic illnesses. Understanding this may provide critical insights into the burden of OOP costs among this population group and may highlight policy gaps.Method and analysisA systematic review of qualitative studies will be conducted using Pubmed, CINAHL Complete (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, PsycINFO (Ovid) and EconLit from date of inception to June 2022. Primary outcomes will include people's experiences of OOP costs such as their preferences, priorities, trade-offs and other decision-making considerations. Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and methodological appraisal of included studies will be assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. A narrative synthesis will be conducted for all included studies.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was not required given this is a systematic review that does not include human recruitment or participation. The study's findings will be disseminated through conferences and symposia and shared with consumers, policymakers and service providers, and published in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42022337538.
| S-EPMC9772657 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith technological advances, radiotherapy has progressed from simple irradiation to robotic arm-based stereotactic radiosurgery systems (SRS, in this case, CyberKnife®). This equipment is high-priced and might be cost-effective or not. The National Health Insurance (NHI) in Taiwan has a premedical claims review process for approving CyberKnife® treatment; however, patients might have to pay for the procedure themselves if the NHI rejects the practice. Under the high treatment cost and such an insurance system, a sketch of patients treated by these high-cost machines and whether the prereview of insurance for reimbursement is reasonable without hindering the patient's right to undergo treatment should be investigated. In this study, the patients of CyberKnife® radiotherapy in our institute were investigated as an example for this purpose.MethodsPatients who underwent CyberKnife® radiotherapy in our department were investigated retrospectively. Their demographic characteristics, disease patterns, and treatment sites were analyzed. Survivals were compared according to clinical features, and treatment expenses were reimbursed after prereview or out-of-pocket.ResultsFrom October 19, 2014, to January 30, 2018, there were 331 patients included in this study, 205 (55.3%) of whom underwent CyberKnife® radiotherapy at their own expense, while 166 (44.7%) had their expenses approved for reimbursement after prereview by NHI. Most patients were treated for metastatic tumors (37.5%), and the brain was the most frequent treatment site (46.1%). The 1-year overall survival was 67.1%, and the 2-year overall survival was 56.3% after CyberKinfe® radiotherapy. The best survival rate (96.8% at 1 year) was for patients with brain tumors. In patient's characteristics, A better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, treatment for primary tumors, and outpatient treatment were independent factors for superior survival after CyberKnife® radiotherapy. The survivals for patients whose treatment expenses were approved for reimbursement after prereview by NHI were also better than out-of-pocket.ConclusionsBesides the patients' characteristics, the treatment expense could be approved or rejected for reimbursement by the NHI prereview was an independent factor for survival in CyberKnife® radiotherapy. Prereview to reimburse expensive treatment is not an unreasonable requirement.
| S-EPMC9388004 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInsurers manage the cost of specialty medicines via rebates, however it is unclear if the savings are passed on to patients, and whether reducing rebates may lead to changes in patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and medication adherence. This study examined two drug classes to understand the impact of reducing list prices to net prices, via lower-priced national drug codes (NDCs) or authorized generics, on patient OOP costs and adherence.MethodsThis retrospective analysis assessed IQVIA PharMetrics ® Plus adjudicated medical and pharmacy claims for commercially insured patients. Patient OOP costs per prescription and payer drug costs were assessed for evolocumab or alirocumab (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors [PCSK9is]) or velpatasvir/sofosbuvir or ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (hepatitis C virus [HCV] medications). For PCSK9is and HCV medications, the original and lower-priced versions were compared. Adherence was estimated based on proportion of days covered (PDC) (PCSK9is) and receipt of full treatment regimen (HCV medications).ResultsIn total, 10,640 patients were included (evolocumab, 5,042; alirocumab, 1,438; velpatasvir/sofosbuvir, 2,952; ledipasvir/sofosbuvir,1,208). After list price reductions, mean payer drug costs decreased by over 60%, while patient OOP cost reductions ranged from 14% to 55% (evolocumab: 55%, p < 0.01; alirocumab: 51%, p < 0.01; velpatasvir/sofosbuvir: 30%, p < 0.01; ledipasvir/sofosbuvir: 14%, p = 0.03). Patients with coinsurance as the largest contributor to their OOP costs had the largest reductions in OOP costs, ranging from adjusted, mean values of US$135 to US$379 (>60% reductions). Six-month PDC for PCSK9is and proportion receiving full HCV treatment regimen were high with the original versions and did not substantially differ with the new, lower-priced versions.ConclusionsReducing list prices to approximate net prices (as a proxy for reducing rebates) resulted in lower patient OOP costs, particularly for those with coinsurance. Our findings suggest that future reduction of rebates may assist in patient affordability, although additional transparency is needed.
| S-EPMC9851557 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeUse of genomic testing, especially multimarker panels, is increasing in the United States. Not all tests and related treatments are covered by health insurance, which can result in substantial patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. Little is known about oncologists' treatment decisions with respect to patient insurance coverage and OOP costs for genomic testing.MethodsWe identified 1,049 oncologists who used multimarker tumor panels from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. Separate multivariable ordinal logistic regressions examined associations of oncologist-, practice-, and area-level characteristics and oncologists' ratings of importance (very, somewhat, or a little/not important) of insurance coverage and OOP costs for genomic testing in treatment decisions, adjusting for oncologist years of experience, sex, race and ethnicity, specialty, use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests, region, tumor boards, patient insurance mix, and area-level socioeconomic characteristics.ResultsAmong oncologists, 47.3%, 32.7%, and 20.0% reported that patient insurance coverage for genomic testing was very, somewhat, or a little/not important, respectively, in treatment decisions. In addition, 56.9%, 28.0%, and 15.2% reported that OOP costs for testing were very, somewhat, or a little/not important, respectively. In adjusted analyses, oncologists who used NGS tests were more likely to report patient insurance and OOP costs as important (odds ratio [OR], 2.00 [95% CI, 1.16 to 3.45] and OR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.22 to 3.68], respectively) in treatment decisions compared with oncologists who did not use these tests, as were oncologists who treated solid tumors, rather than only hematological cancers. More years of experience and higher percentages of Medicaid or self-paid/uninsured patients in the practice were associated with reporting insurance coverage (OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.09 to 1.89]) and OOP costs (OR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.13 to 2.01]) as important. Oncologists in practices with molecular tumor boards for genomic tests were less likely to report coverage (OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.85]) and OOP costs (OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.97]) as important than their counterparts in practices without these tumor boards.ConclusionMost oncologists rate patient health insurance and OOP costs for genomic tests as important considerations in subsequent treatment recommendations. Modifiable factors associated with these ratings can inform interventions to support patient-physician decision making about care.
| S-EPMC11742181 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesUse of intensive care is increasing in the United States and may be associated with high financial burden on patients and their families near the end of life. Our objective was to estimate out-of-pocket costs in the last year of life for individuals who required intensive care in the months prior to death and examine how these costs vary by insurance coverage.DesignObservational cohort study using seven waves of post-death interview data (2002-2014).ParticipantsDecedents (n = 2,909) who spent time in the ICU at some point between their last interview and death.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsTwo-part models were used to estimate out-of-pocket costs for direct medical care and health-related services by type of care and insurance coverage. Decedents with only traditional Medicare fee-for-service coverage have the highest out-of-pocket spending in the last year of life, estimated at $12,668 (95% CI, $9,744-15,592), second to only the uninsured. Medicare Advantage and private insurance provide slightly more comprehensive coverage. Individuals who spend-down to Medicaid coverage have 4× the out-of-pocket spending as those continuously on Medicaid.ConclusionsAcross all categories of insurance coverage, out-of-pocket spending in the last 12 months of life is high and represents a significant portion of assets for many patients requiring intensive care and their families. Medicare fee-for-service alone does not insulate individuals from the financial burden of high-intensity care, due to lack of an out-of-pocket maximum and a relatively high co-payment for hospitalizations. Medicaid plays an important role in the social safety net, providing the most complete hospital coverage of all the insurance groups, as well as significantly financing long-term care.
| S-EPMC6522316 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As of 2014, 37 states have passed mandates requiring many private health insurance policies to cover diagnostic and treatment services for autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). We explore whether ASD mandates are associated with out-of-pocket costs, financial burden, and cost or insurance-related problems with access to treatment among privately insured children with special health care needs (CSHCNs). We use difference-in-difference and difference-in-difference-in-difference approaches, comparing pre--post mandate changes in outcomes among CSHCN who have ASD versus CSHCN other than ASD. Data come from the 2005 to 2006 and the 2009 to 2010 waves of the National Survey of CSHCN. Based on the model used, our findings show no statistically significant association between state ASD mandates and caregivers' reports about financial burden, access to care, and unmet need for services. However, we do find some evidence that ASD mandates may have beneficial effects in states in which greater percentages of privately insured individuals are subject to the mandates. We caution that we do not study the characteristics of ASD mandates in detail, and most ASD mandates have gone into effect very recently during our study period.
| S-EPMC7512023 | biostudies-literature