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 |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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: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:Introduction Australians 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 analysis A 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 dissemination Ethics 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 number CRD42022337538.
| 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:OBJECTIVES:Use 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. DESIGN:Observational cohort study using seven waves of post-death interview data (2002-2014). PARTICIPANTS:Decedents (n = 2,909) who spent time in the ICU at some point between their last interview and death. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Two-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. CONCLUSIONS:Across 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
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:ImportanceImproving access to naloxone is a critical component of the nation's strategy to curb fatal overdoses in the opioid crisis. Standing or protocol orders, prescriptive authority laws, and immunity provisions have been passed by states to expand access, but less attention has been given to potential financial barriers to naloxone access.ObjectiveTo assess trends in out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for naloxone and examine variation in OOP costs by drug brand and payer.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational study analyzed US naloxone claims data from Symphony Health and associated OOP costs for individuals filling naloxone prescriptions by drug brand and payer between January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018. The data were analyzed from March 31, 2021, to April 12, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresThe main measures were trends in annual number of naloxone claims (overall, by payer, and by drug brand) and mean annual OOP costs per claim (overall, by payer, and by drug brand).ResultsOf 719 612 naloxone claims (172 894 generic naloxone, 501 568 Narcan, and 45 150 Evzio) for 2010 through 2018, the number of naloxone claims among insured patients began rapidly increasing after 2014; at the same time, the mean OOP cost of naloxone increased dramatically among the uninsured population. Comparing 2014 with 2018, the mean OOP cost of naloxone decreased by 26% among those with insurance but increased by 506% among uninsured patients. For the uninsured population, the impediment of cost was even larger for certain brands of the drug. In 2016, the mean OOP cost for Evzio among uninsured patients rose to $2136.37 (a 2429% increase relative to 2015) compared with the mean cost of generic naloxone, $72.88, and the cost of Narcan in its first year, $87.95. Throughout the period, the mean OOP costs paid by uninsured patients were higher for Evzio at $1089.17 (95% CI, $884.17-$1294.17) compared with $73.62 (95% CI, $69.24-$78.00) for Narcan and $67.99 (95% CI, $61.42-$74.56) for generic naloxone.Conclusions and relevanceIn this observational study, the findings indicated that the OOP cost of naloxone had been an increasingly substantial barrier to naloxone access for uninsured patients, potentially limiting use among this population, which constituted approximately 20% of adults with opioid use disorder.
| S-EPMC9391964 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8371567 | biostudies-literature