Dataset Information

Effects of State Autism Mandate Age Caps on Health Service Use and Spending Among Adolescents.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Many states with mandates requiring commercial insurers to cover autism spectrum disorder (ASD) health services specify upper age limits above which coverage is no longer mandated. It is unknown what effects these age caps have on health service use and spending among adolescents who have exceeded the age cap. METHOD:Using administrative claims data from 3 national commercial insurers, a difference-in-differences approach was used to estimate effects of age caps on health service use and spending among adolescents with ASD. Statistical models compared changes in use and spending between those above versus below the age cap among individuals eligible versus ineligible for mandated coverage. The analytic sample included data from 2008 through 2012 on 7,845 individuals (151,976 person-months) ages 10 to 21 years in 11 states imposing mandate age caps going into effect during adolescence. RESULTS:Age caps were associated with 4.2 percentage point (95% CI = -7.0, -1.5) lower probability of any ASD-specific service use in a month and $69 less (95% CI = -112, -$26) in average monthly spending on ASD-specific services than would have been expected given concomitant pre-post age cap differences among individuals in the same states who were never eligible for mandate-covered services. In addition, age caps were associated with $99 (95% CI = -$168, -$30) lower average monthly spending on all health care services. CONCLUSION:Insurance mandates that include age caps going into effect during adolescence reduce health service use and spending among individuals with ASD during a critical phase of the life course.

SUBMITTER: Kennedy-Hendricks A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5806145 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of State Autism Mandate Age Caps on Health Service Use and Spending Among Adolescents.

Kennedy-Hendricks Alene A Epstein Andrew J AJ Mandell David S DS Candon Molly K MK Marcus Steven C SC Xie Ming M Barry Colleen L CL

Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 20171205 2

<h4>Objective</h4>Many states with mandates requiring commercial insurers to cover autism spectrum disorder (ASD) health services specify upper age limits above which coverage is no longer mandated. It is unknown what effects these age caps have on health service use and spending among adolescents who have exceeded the age cap.<h4>Method</h4>Using administrative claims data from 3 national commercial insurers, a difference-in-differences approach was used to estimate effects of age caps on healt ...[more]

PMID: 29413145

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceLow-value care, defined as care offering no net benefit in specific clinical scenarios, is associated with harmful outcomes in patients and wasteful spending. Despite a national education campaign and increasing attention on reducing health care waste, recent trends in low-value care delivery remain unknown.ObjectiveTo assess national trends in low-value care use and spending.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, analyses of low-value care use and spending from 2014 to 2018 were conducted using 100% Medicare fee-for-service enrollment and claims data. Included individuals were aged 65 years or older and continuously enrolled in Medicare parts A, B, and D during each measurement year and the previous year. Data were analyzed from September 2019 through December 2020.ExposureBeing enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare for a period of time, in years.Main outcomes and measuresThe Milliman MedInsight Health Waste Calculator was used to assess 32 claims-based measures of low-value care associated with Choosing Wisely recommendations and other professional guidelines. The calculator designates services as wasteful, likely wasteful, or not wasteful based on an absence of indication of appropriate use in the claims history; calculator-designated wasteful services were defined as low-value care. Spending was calculated as claim-line level (ie, spending on the low-value service) and claim level (ie, spending on the low-value service plus associated services), adjusting for inflation.ResultsAmong 21 045 759 individuals with fee-for-service Medicare (mean [SD] age, 77.4 [7.9] years; 12 515 915 [59.5%] women), the percentage receiving any of 32 low-value services decreased from 36.3% (95% CI, 36.3%-36.4%) to 33.6% (95% CI, 33.6%-33.6%) from 2014 to 2018. Uses of low-value services per 1000 individuals decreased from 677.8 (95% CI, 676.2-679.5) to 632.7 (95% CI, 632.6-632.8) from 2014 to 2018. Three services comprised approximately two-thirds of uses among 32 low-value services per 1000 individuals: preoperative laboratory testing decreased from 213.8 (95% CI, 213.4-214.2) to 166.2 (95% CI, 166.2-166.2), while opioids for back pain increased from 154.4 (95% CI, 153.6-155.2) to 182.1 (95% CI, 182.1-182.1) and antibiotics for upper respiratory infections increased from 75.0 (95% CI, 75.0-75.1) to 82 (95% CI, 82.0-82.0). Spending per 1000 individuals on low-value care also decreased, from $52 765.5 (95% CI, $51 952.3-$53 578.6) to $46 921.7 (95% CI, $46 593.7-$47 249.7) at the claim-line level and from $160 070.4 (95% CI, $158 999.8-$161 141.0) to $144 741.1 (95% CI, $144 287.5-$145 194.7) at the claim level.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that among individuals with fee-for-service Medicare receiving any of 32 measured services, low-value care use and spending decreased marginally from 2014 to 2018, despite a national education campaign in collaboration with clinician specialty societies and increased attention on low-value care. While most use of low-value care came from 3 services, 1 of these was opioid prescriptions, which increased over time despite the harms associated with their use. These findings may represent several opportunities to prevent patient harm and lower spending.

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.

Dataset Information

Effects of State Autism Mandate Age Caps on Health Service Use and Spending Among Adolescents.

Publications

Effects of State Autism Mandate Age Caps on Health Service Use and Spending Among Adolescents.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets