Impact of high-deductible health plans on health care utilization and costs.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
High-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.Objective
To 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.Data
Claims and member data from a major insurer and zip code-level census data.Study design
Retrospective 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).Results
In 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.Conclusions
Whether 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.
SUBMITTER: Waters TM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3034267 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Impact of high-deductible health plans on health care utilization and costs.
Waters Teresa M TM Chang Cyril F CF Cecil William T WT Kasteridis Panagiotis P Mirvis David D
Health services research 20101028 1 Pt 1
<h4>Background</h4>High-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.<h4>Objective</h4>To 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.<h4>Data</h4>Claims and member data from a major insurer and zip code-level census data.<h4>Study design</h4>Re ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Prior studies show that men are more likely than women to defer essential care. Enrollment in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) could exacerbate this tendency, but sex-specific responses to HDHPs have not been assessed. We measured the impact of an HDHP separately for men and women.Controlled longitudinal difference-in-differences analysis of low, intermediate, and high severity emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations among 6007 men and 6530 women for 1 year before and up to 2 years after their employers mandated a switch from a traditional health maintenance organization plan to an HDHP, compared with contemporaneous controls (18,433 men and 19,178 women) who remained in an health maintenance organization plan.In the year following transition to an HDHP, men substantially reduced ED visits at all severity levels relative to controls (changes in low, intermediate, and high severity visits of -21.5% [-37.9 to -5.2], -21.6% [-37.4 to -5.7], and -34.4% [-62.1 to -6.7], respectively). Female HDHP members selectively reduced low severity emergency visits (-26.9% [-40.8 to -13.0]) while preserving intermediate and high severity visits. Male HDHP members also experienced a 24.2% [-45.3 to -3.1] relative decline in hospitalizations in year 1, followed by a 30.1% [2.1 to 58.1] relative increase in hospitalizations between years 1 and 2.Initial across-the-board reductions in ED and hospital care followed by increased hospitalizations imply that men may have foregone needed care following an HDHP transition. Clinicians caring for patients with HDHPs should be aware of sex differences in response to benefit design.
| S-EPMC4012427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceHigh-deductible health plans with health savings accounts (HDHP-HSAs) incentivize patients to use less health care, including necessary care. Preventive drug lists (PDLs) exempt high-value medications from the deductible, reducing out-of-pocket cost sharing; the associations of PDLs with health outcomes among patients with asthma is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the associations of a PDL for asthma medications on utilization, adverse outcomes, and patient spending for HDHP-HSA enrollees with asthma.Design, setting, and participantsThis case-control study used matched groups of patients with asthma before and after an insurance design change using a national commercial health insurance claims data set from 2004-2017. Participants included patients aged 4 to 64 years enrolled for 1 year in an HDHP-HSA without a PDL in which asthma medications were subject to the deductible who then transitioned to an HDHP-HSA with a PDL that included asthma medications; these patients were compared with a matched weighted sample of patients with 2 years of continuous enrollment in an HDHP-HSA without a PDL. Models controlled for patient demographics and asthma severity and were stratified by neighborhood income. Analyses were conducted from October 2020 to June 2023.ExposuresEmployer-mandated addition of a PDL that included asthma medications to an existing HDHP-HSA.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes of interest were utilization of asthma medications on the PDL (controllers and albuterol), asthma exacerbations (oral steroid bursts and asthma-related emergency department use), and out-of-pocket spending (all and asthma-specific).ResultsA total of 12 174 participants (mean [SD] age, 36.9 [16.9] years; 6848 [56.25%] female) were included in analyses. Compared with no PDL, PDLs were associated with increased rates of 30-day fills per enrollee for any controller medication (change, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.17] fills per enrollee; 12.9% increase) and for combination inhaled corticosteroid long-acting β2-agonist (ICS-LABA) medications (change, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.10] fills per enrollee; 25.4% increase), and increased proportion of days covered with ICS-LABA (6.0% [0.7% to 11.3%] of days; 15.6% increase). Gaining a PDL was associated with decreased out-of-pocket spending on asthma care (change, -$34 [95% CI, -$47 to -$21] per enrollee; 28.4% difference), but there was no significant change in asthma exacerbations and no difference in results by income.Conclusions and relevanceIn this case-control study, reducing cost-sharing for asthma medications through a PDL was associated with increased adherence to controller medications, notably ICS-LABA medications used by patients with more severe asthma, but was not associated with improved clinical outcomes. These findings suggest that PDLs are a potential strategy to improve access and affordability of asthma care for patients in HDHP-HSAs.
| S-EPMC10466161 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10906623 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTimely evaluation of acute chest pain is necessary, although most evaluations will not find significant coronary disease. With employers increasingly adopting high-deductible health plans (HDHP), how HDHPs impact subsequent care after an emergency department (ED) diagnosis of nonspecific chest pain is unclear.MethodsUsing a commercial and Medicare Advantage claims database, we identified members 19 to 63 years old whose employers exclusively offered low-deductible (≤$500) plans in 1 year, then, at an index date, mandated enrollment in HDHPs (≥$1000) for a subsequent year. We matched them with contemporaneous members whose employers only offered low-deductible plans. Primary outcomes included population rates of index ED visits with a principal diagnosis of nonspecific chest pain, admission during index ED visits, and index ED visits followed by noninvasive cardiac testing within 3 and 30 days, coronary revascularization, and acute myocardial infarction hospitalization within 30 days. We performed a cumulative interrupted time-series analysis, comparing changes in annual outcomes between the HDHP and control groups before and after the index date using aggregate-level segmented regression. Members from higher-poverty neighborhoods were a subgroup of interest.ResultsAfter matching, we included 557 501 members in the HDHP group and 5 861 990 in the control group, with mean ages of 42.0 years, 48% to 49% female, and 67% to 68% non-Hispanic White individuals. Employer-mandated HDHP switches were associated with a relative decrease of 4.3% (95% CI, -5.9 to -2.7; absolute change, -4.5 [95% CI, -6.3 to -2.8] per 10 000 person-years) in nonspecific chest pain ED visits and 11.3% (95% CI, -14.0 to -8.6) decrease (absolute change, -1.7 per 10 000 person-years [95% CI, -2.1 to -1.2]) in visits leading to hospitalization. There was no significant decrease in subsequent noninvasive testing or revascularization procedures. An increase in 30-day acute myocardial infarction admissions was not statistically significant (15.9% [95% CI, -1.0 to 32.7]; absolute change, 0.3 per 10 000 person-years [95% CI, -0.01 to 0.5]) but was significant among members from higher-poverty neighborhoods.ConclusionsEmployer-mandated HDHP switches were associated with decreased nonspecific chest pain ED visits and hospitalization from these ED visits, but no significant change in post-ED cardiac testing. However, HDHP enrollment was associated with increased 30-day acute myocardial infarction admission after ED diagnosis of nonspecific chest pain among members from higher-poverty neighborhoods.
| S-EPMC8323713 | 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: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:The effects of high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) on breast cancer diagnosis and treatment among vulnerable populations are unknown. We examined time to first breast cancer diagnostic testing, diagnosis, and chemotherapy among a group of women whose employers switched their insurance coverage from health plans with low deductibles ($500 or less) to plans with high deductibles ($1,000 or more) between 2004 and 2014. Primary subgroups of interest comprised 54,403 low-income and 76,776 high-income women continuously enrolled in low-deductible plans for a year and then up to four years in HDHPs. Matched controls had contemporaneous low-deductible enrollment. Low-income women in HDHPs experienced relative delays of 1.6 months to first breast imaging, 2.7 months to first biopsy, 6.6 months to incident early-stage breast cancer diagnosis, and 8.7 months to first chemotherapy. High-income HDHP members had shorter delays that did not differ significantly from those of their low-income counterparts. HDHP members living in metropolitan, nonmetropolitan, predominantly white, and predominantly nonwhite areas also experienced delayed breast cancer care. Policies may be needed to reduce out-of-pocket spending obligations for breast cancer care.
| S-EPMC7268048 | 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
Project description:ImportanceHealth savings accounts (HSAs) can be used by enrollees in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) to save for health care expenses before taxes. Expansion of and encouraging contributions to HSAs have been centerpieces of recent federal legislation. Little is known about how US residents who may be eligible for HSAs are using them to save for health care.ObjectiveTo determine which patients who may be eligible for an HSA do not have one and what decisions patients with HSAs make about contributing to them.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional national survey assessed an online survey panel representative of the US adult population. Adults aged 18 to 64 years and enrolled in an HDHP for at least 12 months were eligible to participate. Data were collected from August 26 to September 19, 2016, and analyzed from November 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresPrevalence of not having an HSA or not making HSA contributions in the last 12 months and reasons for not making the HSA contributions.ResultsBased on data from 1637 individuals (American Association of Public Opinion Research response rate 4, 54.8%), half (50.6% [95% CI, 47.7%-53.6%]) of US adults in HDHPs were female, and most were aged 36 to 51 (35.7% [95% CI, 32.8%-38.6%]) or 52 to 64 (36.8% [95% CI, 34.1%-39.5%]) years. Approximately 1 in 3 (32.5% [95% CI, 29.8%-35.3%]) did not have an HSA. Those who obtained their health insurance through an exchange were more likely to lack an HSA (70.3% [95% CI, 61.9%-78.6%]) than those who worked for an employer that offered only 1 health insurance plan (36.5% [95% CI, 30.9%-42.1%]; P < .001). More than half of individuals with an HSA (55.0% [95% CI, 51.1%-58.8%]) had not contributed money into it in the last 12 months. Among HDHP enrollees with an HSA, those with at least a master's degree (46.1% [95% CI, 38.3%-53.9%]; P = .02) or a high level of health insurance literacy (47.3% [95% CI, 40.7%-54.0%]; P = .03) were less likely to have made no HAS contributions. Common reasons for not contributing to an HSA included not considering it (36.8% [95% CI, 30.8%-42.8%]) and being unable to afford saving for health care (31.9% [95% CI, 26.2%-37.6%]).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that many US adults enrolled in an HDHP lack an HSA, and few with an HSA saved for health care in the last year. Targeted interventions should be explored by employers, health plans, and health systems to encourage HSA uptake and contributions among individuals who could benefit from their use.
| S-EPMC7368175 | 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