Medical Cost of Cancer Care for Privately Insured Children in Chile.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Borrescio-Higa F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8267683 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8406076 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionBenzodiazepines are commonly prescribed in the U.S. but entail safety concerns, including dependency. In pediatrics, many indications lack trial data. Authors aimed to describe youth initiating prescription benzodiazepine treatment, identify potential indications and prescribing concerns, estimate the duration of treatment by potential indication, and identify factors that predict long-term use.MethodsThe study cohort included children (aged 3-12 years) and adolescents (aged 13-17 years) initiating prescription benzodiazepine treatment (≥3 days' supply) from January 2010 to September 2015 in a U.S. commercial claims database. Potential indications included selected ICD-9-CM diagnoses (≤30 days prior). Long-term (≥6 months) benzodiazepine treatment was estimated with Kaplan-Meier estimation and modified Poisson regression identified independent predictors of long-term benzodiazepine treatment (analysis completed in 2018).ResultsOf 24,504 children and 61,046 adolescents initiating benzodiazepines, 62% of the children and 68% of the adolescents had a potential indication. Anxiety disorders were the most common indication, with mental health indications more common among adolescents (45%) than children (23%) and epilepsy and movement disorders higher in children. Recent opioid prescriptions were common before benzodiazepine initiation (children, 22%; adolescents, 21%). Six percent of the initiators became long-term benzodiazepine users. Potential indication, provider contact, psychotropic medication, and chronic conditions independently predicted long-term benzodiazepine treatment in adolescents and children.ConclusionsU.S. children and adolescents are prescribed benzodiazepines for various mental health and other medical conditions, many lacking evidence of pediatric efficacy. Long-term benzodiazepine treatment, concurrent opioid prescriptions, psychotropic use, and prior substance use disorder diagnoses suggest safety risks among some youth prescribed benzodiazepines.
| S-EPMC6935869 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate trends of annual antipsychotic medication use by privately insured young children (aged 2-7 years) in the United States, and to describe the clinical and treatment characteristics of these children.MethodThe study population included young children from a nationwide commercial claims database (2007-2017). We estimated annual antipsychotic use by age and sex, defined as the number of children dispensed an antipsychotic per year divided by the number enrolled. We described clinical diagnoses and mental health service use in those with prescription antipsychotic use in 2009 and 2017.ResultsAnnual antipsychotic use in young children was 0.27% in 2007, peaked at 0.29% in 2009, and statistically significantly declined to 0.17% by 2017 (linear trend: -0.017% per year, 95% CI: -0.018 to -0.016). Antipsychotic use was higher in boys than in girls. A greater proportion of antipsychotic users received a mental disorder diagnosis in 2017 (89%) than in 2009 (86%, p < .01). The most common clinical diagnoses in antipsychotic users, under a hierarchical classification, were pervasive developmental disorder (2009 = 27%, 2017 = 38%, p < .01), conduct or disruptive behavior disorder (2009 = 15%, 2017 = 21%, p < .01), and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (2009 = 24%, 2017 = 18%, p < .01). Among 2017 antipsychotic users, 32% had 4+ psychotherapy claims, 43% had a psychiatrist visit, and the majority used another psychotropic medication, most commonly a stimulant (boys = 57%, girls = 50%).ConclusionIn privately insured young children, antipsychotic use declined from 2009 to 2017, with shifts toward indications with some supporting evidence. Nevertheless, a majority of use remains off label and for conditions lacking effectiveness and safety data. Improving antipsychotic prescribing in young children remains a challenge.
| S-EPMC8055725 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceCurrently, there are limited published data regarding resource use and spending on cancer care in the US.ObjectiveTo characterize the most frequent medical services provided and the associated spending for privately insured patients with cancer in the US.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used data from the MarketScan database for the calendar year 2018 from a sample of 27.1 million privately insured individuals, including patients with a diagnosis of the 15 most prevalent cancers, predominantly from large insurers and self-insured employers. Overall societal health care spending was estimated for each cancer type by multiplying the mean total spending per patient (estimated from MarketScan) by the number of privately insured patients living with that cancer in 2018, as reported by the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Analyses were performed from February 1, 2018, to July 8, 2021.ExposuresEvaluation and management as prescribed by treating care team.Main outcomes and measuresCurrent Procedural Terminology and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes based on cancer diagnosis code.ResultsThe estimated cost of cancer care in 2018 for 402 115 patients with the 15 most prevalent cancer types was approximately $156.2 billion for privately insured adults younger than 65 years in the US. There were a total of 38.4 million documented procedure codes for 15 cancers in the MarketScan database, totaling $10.8 billion. Patients with breast cancer contributed the greatest total number of services (10.9 million [28.4%]), followed by those with colorectal cancer (3.9 million [10.2%]) and prostate cancer (3.6 million [9.4%]). Pathology and laboratory tests contributed the highest number of services performed (11.7 million [30.5%]), followed by medical services (6.3 million [16.4%]) and medical supplies and nonphysician services (6.1 million [15.9%]). The costliest cancers were those of the breast ($3.4 billion [31.5%]), followed by lung ($1.1 billion [10.2%]) and colorectum ($1.1 billion [10.2%]). Medical supplies and nonphysician services contributed the highest total spent ($4.0 billion [37.0%]), followed by radiology ($2.1 billion [19.4%]) and surgery ($1.8 billion [16.7%]).Conclusions and relevanceThis analysis suggests that patients with breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers had the greatest number of services performed, particularly for pathology and laboratory tests, whereas patients with breast, lung, lymphoma, and colorectal cancer incurred the greatest costs, particularly for medical supplies and nonphysician services. The cost of cancer care in 2018 for the 15 most prevalent cancer types was estimated to be approximately $156.2 billion for privately insured adults younger than 65 years in the US.
| S-EPMC8495533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo characterize physician health system membership in four states between 2012 and 2016 and to compare primary care quality and cost between in-system providers and non-system providers for the commercially insured population.Data sourcesPhysician membership in health systems was obtained from a unique longitudinal database on health systems and matched at the provider level to 2014 all-payer claims data from Colorado, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Utah.Study designUsing an observational study design, we compared physicians in health systems to non-system physicians located in the same state and geography on average cost of care (risk-adjusted using the Johns Hopkins' Adjusted Clinical Grouper), five HEDIS quality measures, one measure of developmental screening, and two Prevention Quality Indicator Measures.Data collection/extraction methodsPatients in commercial health plans were attributed to a primary care physician accounting for the plurality of office visits. A cohort for each quality measure was constructed based on appropriate measure specifications.Principal findingsThe share of physicians in health systems increased steadily from 2012 to 2016 and ranged from 48% in Colorado to 63% in Utah in 2016. Compared to physicians not in a system, system physicians performed similarly on most HEDIS quality metrics compared to non-system physicians. Patients attributed to in-system physicians had about 40% higher rates (P < .05) of Ambulatory Care Sensitive Admissions (measured in admissions per 100 000:921.33 in-system vs 674.61 not-in-system for acute composite; 2540.91 in-system vs 1972.17 for chronic composite In-system providers were associated with $29 (P < .05) higher average per member per month costs (453.37 vs 432.93). Overall, differences in performance by system membership were relatively small compared to differences across states and geography.ConclusionA growing share of physicians is part of a health system from 2012 to 2016. Providers in health systems are not delivering primary care more efficiently than non-system providers for the commercially insured.
| S-EPMC7720710 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBreast cancer screening for women aged 40-49 years is prevalent and costly, with costs varying substantially across US regions. Newer approaches to mammography may improve cancer detection but also increase screening costs. We assessed factors associated with regional variation in screening costs.MethodsWe used Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis, a large US commercial claims database accessed through secure portal, to assess regional variation in screening utilization and costs. We included screening mammography±digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), screening ultrasound, diagnostic mammography±DBT, diagnostic ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy, and evaluated their utilization and costs. We assessed regional variation in annual per-screened-beneficiary costs and examined potential savings from reducing regional variation.ResultsOf the 2,257,393 privately insured women, 41.2% received screening mammography in 2017 (range: 26.6%-54.2% across regions). Wide regional variation was found in the DBT proportion (0.7%-91.1%) and mean costs of DBT ($299; range: $113-714) and 2-dimensional (D) mammograms ($213; range: $107-471). In one-fourth of the regions, the mean DBT cost was lower than the mean 2D mammography cost in the full sample. Regional variation in the per-screened-beneficiary cost (mean: $353; range: $151-751) was mainly attributable to variation in the cost of DBT (accounting for 23.4% of regional variation) and 2D mammography (23.0%). Reducing regional variation by decreasing the highest values to the national mean was projected to save $79-335 million annually.ConclusionsThe mean mammogram cost for privately insured women ages 40-49 varies 7-fold across regions, driving substantial variation in breast cancer screening costs. Reducing this regional variation would substantially decrease the screening costs.
| S-EPMC8611614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Racial disparities in health outcomes after living donation have been reported, but generalizability is not known.We linked Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) registry data for 4,007 living kidney donors in 1987 to 2008 with Medicare billing claims (2000-2008). Cox regression with left and right censoring was used to estimate the frequencies and relative risks of postdonation medical diagnoses according to race. Patterns were compared with findings from a previous linkage of OPTN donor records and private insurance claims.Among the Medicare-insured donors, 8% were African American and 5.7% were Hispanic. Diagnosis frequencies at 5 years after donation in the Medicare- versus privately insured donors included the following: malignant hypertension, 5.0% versus 0.9%; diabetes, 18.5% versus 4.1%; and chronic kidney disease, 21.8% versus 4.9%. After age and sex adjustment in the Medicare sample, African Americans, as compared with white donors, experienced higher risks of any hypertension diagnosis, including 2.4 times the likelihood of malignant hypertension (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-3.93), and more common diabetes (aHR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.12-2.04), chronic kidney disease (aHR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.37-2.47), and proteinuria (aHR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.45-4.11) diagnoses. Relative patterns for privately insured African American versus white donors were similar, including approximately three times the risk of malignant hypertension (aHR, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.82-5.88) and twice the relative risks of chronic kidney disease and proteinuria.Consistent demonstration of racial variation in postdonation medical conditions regardless of sample/payer source supports the need for continued study of mediators and consequences of outcomes in non-white donors.
| S-EPMC4568842 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Earlier studies investigated rural-urban colorectal cancer (CRC) screening disparities among older adults or used surveys. The objective was to compare screening uptake between rural and urban individuals 50-64 years of age using private health insurance. Data were analyzed from 58,774 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska beneficiaries. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between rural-urban and CRC screening use. Results indicate that rural individuals were 56% more likely to use the Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) compared with urban residents, but rural females were 68% less likely to use FOBT. Individuals with few Primary Care Physician (PCP) visits and rural-women are the least to receive screening. To enhance CRC screening, a policy should be devised for the training and placement of female PCP in rural areas. In particular, multilevel interventions, including education, more resources, and policies to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening, are needed. Further research is warranted to investigate barriers to CRC screening in rural areas.
| S-EPMC7710856 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAlthough surprise medical bills are receiving considerable attention from lawmakers and the news media, to date there has been little systematic study of the incidence and financial consequences of out-of-network billing.ObjectiveTo examine out-of-network billing among privately insured patients with an inpatient admission or emergency department (ED) visit at in-network hospitals.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective analysis using data from the Clinformatics Data Mart database (Optum), which includes health insurance claims for individuals from all 50 US states receiving private health insurance from a large commercial insurer was conducted of all inpatient admissions (n = 5 457 981) and ED visits (n = 13 579 006) at in-network hospitals between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016. Data were collected and analyzed in March 2019.ExposuresReceipt of a bill for care from at least 1 out-of-network physician or medical transport service associated with patient admission or ED visit.Main outcomes and measuresThe incidence of out-of-network billing and the potential amount of patients' financial liability associated with out-of-network bills from the admission or visit.ResultsOf 5 457 981 inpatient admissions and 13 579 006 ED admissions between 2010 and 2016, the percentage of ED visits with an out-of-network bill increased from 32.3% to 42.8% (P < .001) during the study period, and the mean (SD) potential financial responsibility for these bills increased from $220 ($420) to $628 ($865) (P < .001; all dollar values in 2018 US$). Similarly, the percentage of inpatient admissions with an out-of-network bill increased from 26.3% to 42.0% (P < .001), and the mean (SD) potential financial responsibility increased from $804 ($2456) to $2040 ($4967) (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceOut-of-network billing appears to have become common for privately insured patients even when they seek treatment at in-network hospitals. The mean amounts billed appear to be sufficiently large that they may create financial strain for a substantial proportion of patients.
| S-EPMC6692693 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePrevious research has shown relatively high use of out-of-network mental health providers, although direct comparisons with rates among general health providers are not available. We aimed to (1) estimate the proportion of privately insured adults using an out-of-network mental health provider in the past 12 months; (2) compare rates of out-of-network mental health provider use with out-of-network general medical use; (3) determine reasons for out-of-network mental health care use.MethodsA nationally representative sample of privately insured US adults was surveyed using the internet in February 2011. Screener questions identified if the participant had used either a general medical physician or a mental health professional within the past 12 months. Respondents using either type of out-of-network provider completed a 10-minute survey on details of their out-of-network care experiences.ResultsEighteen percent of individuals who used a mental health provider reported at least 1 contact with an out-of-network mental health provider, compared to 6.8% who used a general health provider (P<0.01). The most common reasons for choosing an out-of-network mental health provider were the physician was recommended (26.1%), continuity with a previously known provider (23.7%), and the perceived skill of the provider (19.3%).ConclusionsOut-of-network provider use is more likely in mental health care than general health care. Most respondents chose an out-of-network mental health provider based on perceived provider quality or continuing care with a previously known provider rather than issues related to the availability of an in-network provider, convenient location, or appointment wait time.
| S-EPMC4707657 | biostudies-literature