S-EPMC6143078 - Association of Out-of-Pocket Annual Health Expenditures With Financial Hardship in Low-Income Adults With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in the United States. - OmicsDI

Unknown

Dataset Information

Association of Out-of-Pocket Annual Health Expenditures With Financial Hardship in Low-Income Adults With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Health insurance is effective in preventing financial hardship from unexpected major health care events. However, it is also essential to assess whether vulnerable patients, particularly those from low-income families, are adequately protected from longitudinal health care costs for common chronic conditions such as atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Objective

To examine the annual burden of total out-of-pocket health expenses among low-income families that included a member with ASCVD.

Design, setting, and participants

In this cross-sectional study of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from January 2006 through December 2015, all families with 1 or more members with ASCVD were identified. Families were classified as low income if they had an income under 200% of the federal poverty limit. Analyses began December 2017.

Main outcomes and measures

Total annual inflation-adjusted out-of-pocket expenses, inclusive of insurance premiums, for all patients with ASCVD. We compared these expenses against annual family incomes. Out-of-pocket expenses of more than 20% and more than 40% of family income defined high and catastrophic financial burden, respectively.

Results

We identified 22 521 adults with ASCVD, represented in 20 600 families in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. They correspond to an annual estimated 23 million or 9.9% of US adults with a mean (SE) age of 65 (0.2) years and included 10.9 million women (47.1%). They were represented in 21 million or 15% of US families. Of these, 8.2 million families (39%) were low income. The mean annual family income was $57 143 (95% CI, $55 377-$58 909), and the mean out-of-pocket expense was $4415 (95% CI, $3735-$3976). While financial burden from health expenses decreased throughout the study, even in 2014 and 2015, low-income families had 3-fold higher odds than mid/high-income families of high financial burden (21.4% vs 7.6%; OR, 3.31; 95% CI, 2.55-4.31) and 9-fold higher odds of catastrophic financial burden (9.8% vs 1.2%; OR, 9.35; 95% CI, 5.39-16.20), representing nearly 2 million low-income families nationally. Further, even among the insured, 1.6 million low-income families (21.8%) experienced high financial burden and 721?000 low-income families (9.8%) experienced catastrophic out-of-pocket health care expenses in 2014 and 2015.

Conclusions and relevance

One in 4 low-income families with a member with ASCVD, including those with insurance coverage, experience a high financial burden, and 1 in 10 experience a catastrophic financial burden due to cumulative out-of-pocket health care expenses. To alleviate economic disparities, policy interventions must extend focus to improving not only access, but also quality of coverage, particularly for low-income families.

SUBMITTER: Khera R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6143078 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

altmetric image

Publications

Association of Out-of-Pocket Annual Health Expenditures With Financial Hardship in Low-Income Adults With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in the United States.

Khera Rohan R Valero-Elizondo Javier J Okunrintemi Victor V Saxena Anshul A Das Sandeep R SR de Lemos James A JA Krumholz Harlan M HM Nasir Khurram K

JAMA cardiology 20180801 8

<h4>Importance</h4>Health insurance is effective in preventing financial hardship from unexpected major health care events. However, it is also essential to assess whether vulnerable patients, particularly those from low-income families, are adequately protected from longitudinal health care costs for common chronic conditions such as atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the annual burden of total out-of-pocket health expenses among low-income families that ...[more]

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo estimate temporal trends in total and out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures for ophthalmic prescription medications among adults in the United States.DesignRetrospective, longitudinal cohort study.ParticipantsParticipants in the 2007 through 2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) 18 years of age or older. The MEPS is a nationally representative survey of the noninstitutionalized, civilian United States population.MethodsWe estimated trends in national and per capita annual ophthalmic prescription expenditures by pooling data into 2-year cycles and using weighted linear regressions. We also identified characteristics associated with greater total or OOP expenditures with multivariate weighted linear regression. Costs were adjusted to 2016 United States dollars using the gross domestic product price index.Main outcome measuresTrends in total and OOP annual expenditures for ophthalmic medications from 2007 through 2016 as well as factors associated with greater expenditures.ResultsFrom 2007 through 2016, 9989 MEPS participants (4.2%) reported ophthalmic medication prescription use. Annual ophthalmic medication use increased from 10.0 to 12.2 million individuals from 2007 and 2008 through 2015 and 2016. In this same period, national expenditures for ophthalmic medications increased from $3.39 billion to $6.08 billion and OOP expenditures decreased from $1.34 to $1.18 billion. Per capita expenditure increased from $338.72 to $499.42 (P < 0.001), and per capita OOP expenditure decreased from $133.48 to $96.67 (P < 0.001) from 2007 and 2008 through 2015 and 2016, respectively. From 2015 through 2016, dry eye (29.5%) and glaucoma (42.7%) medications accounted for 72.2% of all ophthalmic medication expenditures. Patients who were older than 65 years (P < 0.001), uninsured (P < 0.001), and visually impaired (P < 0.001) were significantly more likely to have greater OOP spending on ophthalmic medications.ConclusionsTotal ophthalmic medication expenditure in the United States increased significantly over the last decade, whereas OOP expenses decreased. Increases in coverage, copayment assistance, and use of expensive brand drugs may be contributing to these trends. Policy makers and physicians should be aware that rising overall drug expenditures ultimately may increase indirect costs to the patient and offset a decline in OOP prescription drug spending.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To examine the association between expansion of the Medicaid program under the Affordable Care Act and changes in healthcare spending among low income adults during the first four years of the policy implementation (2014-17). DESIGN:Quasi-experimental difference-in-difference analysis to examine out-of-pocket spending and financial burden among low income adults after Medicaid expansions. SETTING:United States. PARTICIPANTS:A nationally representative sample of individuals aged 19-64 years, with family incomes below 138% of the federal poverty level, from the 2010-17 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Four annual healthcare spending outcomes: out-of-pocket spending; premium contributions; out-of-pocket plus premium spending; and catastrophic financial burden (defined as out-of-pocket plus premium spending exceeding 40% of post-subsistence income). P values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. RESULTS:37?819 adults were included in the study. Healthcare spending did not change in the first two years, but Medicaid expansions were associated with lower out-of-pocket spending (adjusted percentage change -28.0% (95% confidence interval -38.4% to -15.8%); adjusted absolute change -$122 (£93; €110); adjusted P<0.001), lower out-of-pocket plus premium spending (-29.0% (-40.5% to -15.3%); -$442; adjusted P<0.001), and lower probability of experiencing a catastrophic financial burden (adjusted percentage point change -4.7 (-7.9 to -1.4); adjusted P=0.01) in years three to four. No evidence was found to indicate that premium contributions changed after the Medicaid expansions. CONCLUSION:Medicaid expansions under the Affordable Care Act were associated with lower out-of-pocket spending and a lower likelihood of catastrophic financial burden for low income adults in the third and fourth years of the act's implementation. These findings suggest that the act has been successful nationally in improving financial risk protection against medical bills among low income adults.

Project description:IntroductionThe decreasing effectiveness of antimicrobial agents is a growing global public health concern. Low-income and middle-income countries are vulnerable to the loss of antimicrobial efficacy because of their high burden of infectious disease and the cost of treating resistant organisms. We aimed to assess if copayments in the public sector promoted the development of antibiotic resistance by inducing patients to purchase treatment from less well regulated private providers.MethodsWe analysed data from the WHO 2014 Antibacterial Resistance Global Surveillance report. We assessed the importance of out-of-pocket spending and copayment requirements for public sector drugs on the level of bacterial resistance in low-income and middle-income countries, using linear regression to adjust for environmental factors purported to be predictors of resistance, such as sanitation, animal husbandry, and poverty, and other structural components of the health sector. Our outcome variable of interest was the proportion of bacterial isolates tested that showed resistance to a class of antimicrobial agents. In particular, we computed the average proportion of isolates that showed antibiotic resistance for a given bacteria-antibacterial combination in a given country.FindingsOur sample included 47 countries (23 in Africa, eight in the Americas, three in Europe, eight in the Middle East, three in southeast Asia, and two in the western Pacific). Out-of-pocket health expenditures were the only factor significantly associated with antimicrobial resistance. A ten point increase in the percentage of health expenditures that were out-of-pocket was associated with a 3·2 percentage point increase in resistant isolates (95% CI 1·17-5·15; p=0·002). This association was driven by countries requiring copayments for drugs in the public health sector. Of these countries, moving from the 20th to 80th percentile of out-of-pocket health expenditures was associated with an increase in resistant bacterial isolates from 17·76% (95% CI 12·54-22·97) to 36·27% (31·16-41·38).InterpretationOut-of-pocket health expenditures were strongly correlated with antimicrobial resistance in low-income and middle-income countries. This relation was driven by countries that require copayments on drugs in the public sector. Our data suggest cost-sharing of antimicrobials in the public sector might drive demand to the private sector in which supply-side incentives to overprescribe are probably heightened and quality assurance less standardised.FundingNational Institutes of Health.

Project description:BackgroundFinancial risk protection (FRP) is a key component of universal health coverage (UHC): all individuals must be able to obtain the health services they need without experiencing financial hardship. In many low-income and lower-middle-income countries, however, the health system fails to provide sufficient protection against high out-of-pocket (OOP) spending on health services. In 2018, OOP health spending comprised approximately 40% of current health expenditures in low-income and lower-middle-income countries.MethodsWe model the household risk of catastrophic health expenditures (CHE), conditional on having a given disease or condition-defined as OOP health spending that exceeds a threshold percentage (10, 25, or 40%) of annual income-for 29 health services across 13 disease categories (e.g., diarrheal diseases, cardiovascular diseases) in 34 low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Health services were included in the analysis if delivered at the primary care level and part of the Disease Control Priorities, 3rd edition "highest priority package." Data were compiled from several publicly available sources, including national health accounts, household surveys, and the published literature. A risk of CHE, conditional on having disease, was modeled as depending on usage, captured through utilization indicators; affordability, captured via the level of public financing and OOP health service unit costs; and income.ResultsAcross all countries, diseases, and health services, the risk of CHE (conditional on having a disease) would be concentrated among poorer quintiles (6.8% risk in quintile 1 vs. 1.3% in quintile 5 using a 10% CHE threshold). The risk of CHE would be higher for a few disease areas, including cardiovascular disease and mental/behavioral disorders (7.8% and 9.8% using a 10% CHE threshold), while lower risks of CHE were observed for lower cost services.ConclusionsInsufficient FRP stands as a major barrier to achieving UHC, and risk of CHE is a major problem for health systems in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. Beyond its threat to the financial stability of households, CHE may also lead to worse health outcomes, especially among the poorest for whom both ill health and financial risk are most severe. Modeling the risk of CHE associated with specific disease areas and services can help policymakers set progressive health sector priorities. Decision-makers could explicitly include FRP as a criterion for consideration when assessing the health interventions for inclusion in national essential benefit packages.

Project description:ImportanceFinancial hardship affects health care access and health outcomes among peripartum women.ObjectiveTo evaluate the prevalence of financial hardship among peripartum women over time and by insurance type and income.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study included peripartum women, defined as women aged 18 to 45 years who reported being currently pregnant or pregnant in the past 12 months, who participated in the National Health Interview Survey from 2013 to 2018. Data were analyzed from January to May 2021.ExposuresCurrent pregnancy or recent pregnancy as well as insurance type and income.Main outcomes and measuresThree measures of financial hardship within the last year were evaluated: (1) unmet health care need due to cost (unmet need for medical care or delayed or deferred medical care due to cost); (2) health care unaffordability (worry about paying for potential medical bills or existing medical debt); and (3) general financial stress (worry about subsistence spending [eg, monthly bills, housing]).ResultsThe study cohort included 3509 peripartum women, weighted to represent 1 050 789 women (2018: an estimated 36 045 of 184 018 [19.6%] Hispanic, 39 017 [21.2%] Black, and 97 366 [52.9%] White), with a mean (SD) age of 29 (6) years. Overall, from 2013 to 2018, 24.2% (95% CI, 22.6%-26.0%) of peripartum women reported unmet health care need, 60.0% (95% CI, 58.0%-61.9%) reported health care unaffordability, and 54.0% (95% CI, 51.5%-56.5%) reported general financial stress. The prevalence of financial hardship outcomes did not substantially change between 2013 and 2018 (unmet health care need in 2013: 27.9% [95% CI, 24.4%-31.7%]; in 2018: 23.7% [95% CI, 19.5%-28.6%]; health care unaffordability in 2013: 65.7% [95% CI, 61.1%-70.0%]; in 2018: 58.8% [95% CI, 53.4%-64.0%]; general financial stress in 2013: 60.6% [95% CI, 55.2%-65.8%]; in 2018: 53.8% [95% CI, 47.8%-59.8%]). Women with private insurance had lower odds of unmet need (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87) but higher odds of health care unaffordability (aOR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.49-2.36) compared with women with public insurance. Peripartum women with household incomes less than 400% of the federal poverty level had higher odds of unmet need (aOR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.08-2.08) and unaffordable care (aOR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.54-2.55) compared with those with household incomes 400% or more of federal poverty level.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that financial hardship among peripartum women in the United States was common from 2013 to 2018, including 24% of pregnant and postpartum women reporting unmet health care need and 60% reporting health care unaffordability. Women with private insurance and those living on lower incomes were more likely to experience unaffordable health care than women with pubic insurance and those with higher incomes, respectively. Targeted policy interventions are needed to improve health care affordability and promote overall economic security among peripartum women.