Dataset Information

Patterns of Use of a Price Transparency Tool for Childbirth Among Pregnant Individuals With Commercial Insurance.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

When introduced a decade ago, patient-facing price transparency tools had low use rates and were largely not associated with changes in spending. Little is known about how such tools are used by pregnant individuals in anticipation of childbirth, a shoppable service with increasing out-of-pocket spending.

Objective

To measure changes over time in the patterns and characteristics of use of a price transparency tool by pregnant individuals, and to identify the association between price transparency tool use, coinsurance, and childbirth spending.

Design, setting, and participants

This descriptive cross-sectional study of 2 cohorts used data from a US commercial health insurance company that launched a web-based price transparency tool in 2010. Data on all price transparency tool queries for 2 periods (January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2012, and January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2016) were obtained. The sample included enrollees aged 19 to 45 years who had a delivery episode during 2 periods (November 1, 2011, to December 31, 2012, or November 1, 2015, to December 31, 2016) and were continuously enrolled for the 10 months prior to delivery (N = 253 606).

Exposures

Access to a web-based price transparency tool that provided individualized out-of-pocket price estimates for vaginal and cesarean deliveries.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcomes were searches on the price transparency tool by delivery mode (vaginal or cesarean), timing (first, second, or third trimester), and individual characteristics (age at childbirth, rurality, pregnancy risk status, coinsurance exposure, area educational attainment, and area median household income). Another outcome was the association of out-of-pocket childbirth spending with price transparency tool use.

Results

The sample included 253 606 pregnant individuals, of whom 131 224 (51.7%) were in the 2011 to 2012 cohort and 122 382 (48.3%) were in the 2015 to 2016 cohort. In the 2015 to 2016 cohort, the mean (SD) age was 31 years (5.2 years) and most individuals had coinsurance for delivery (94 251 [77.0%]). Price searching increased from 5.9% in the 2011 to 2012 cohort to 13.0% in the 2015 to 2016 cohort. In the 2015 to 2016 cohort, 43.9% of searchers' first price query was in their first trimester. The adjusted probability of searching was lower for individuals with a high-risk pregnancy due to a previous cesarean delivery (11.5%; 95% CI, 11.0%-12.1%) vs individuals with low-risk pregnancy (13.4%; 95% CI, 12.9%-14.0%). Use increased monotonically with coinsurance, from 9.2% (95% CI, 8.7%-9.8%) among individuals with no coinsurance to 15.0% (95% CI, 14.4%-15.5%) among individuals with 11% or higher coinsurance. After adjusting for covariates, searching was positively associated with out-of-pocket delivery episode spending. Among patients with 11% coinsurance or higher, early and late searchers spent more out of pocket ($59.57 [95% CI, $33.44-$85.96] and $73.33 [95% CI, $32.04-$115.29], respectively), compared with never searchers.

Conclusions and relevance

The results of this cross-sectional study indicate that the proportion of pregnant individuals who sought price information before childbirth more than doubled within the first 6 years of availability of a price transparency tool. These findings suggest that price information may help individuals anticipate their out-of-pocket childbirth costs.

SUBMITTER: Gourevitch RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8374613 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare prices paid by commercial insurers for ambulatory services in physician office and hospital outpatient settings.Data sourcesMarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database obtained from Truven Health Analytics.Study designWe examined ambulatory service claims for a sample of privately insured individuals who were continuously enrolled in a health maintenance organization plan, preferred provider organization plan, high-deductible/consumer-driven health plan, or exclusive provider organization plan in 2018. We categorized services into five categories: Evaluation & Management, Medical Services & Procedures, Pathology/Lab, Radiology, and Surgical. We identified services commonly provided in both outpatient and office settings and computed the price differential between outpatient and office services overall and for each service category, controlling for observable patient characteristics and geography.Data collectionWe examined 89 services (defined by Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code) that were provided in both office and outpatient settings in our sample (102.7 million claims, 8.3 million individuals).Principal findingsAdjusting for patient and geographic characteristics and across all services, total payment for an ambulatory service was, on average, 145% higher in a hospital outpatient department than the same service in a physician office. Out-of-pocket spending was 109% higher. Price differences between outpatient and office services were highest for pathology/laboratory services. Patients receiving services in outpatient departments had higher mean risk scores and received more services on the date of their visit (in addition to the index CPT being studied) than patients receiving the same index CPT in a physician's office.ConclusionsPayments in hospital outpatient departments were significantly higher than payments for the same services in physician offices among commercially insured patients. Policies such as site-neutral payment would lower costs and could reduce incentives for further consolidation in health care markets. Care must be given to adjusting for patient severity across settings.

Project description:ImportancePostpartum Medicaid eligibility extensions are likely to shift enrollees from commercial to Medicaid coverage in the postpartum year; however, the potential implications for health care use and spending are unknown.ObjectiveTo compare health care use and spending among individuals with a Medicaid-paid birth who had continuous Medicaid vs continuous commercial insurance during months 3 to 12 post partum.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study using linked all-payer claims, birth records, and income data for Medicaid-paid births in the Colorado All Payer Claims Database from 2014 to 2019 to estimate the association between continuous Medicaid vs commercial insurance and health care use and spending during months 3 to 12 post partum.ExposureContinuous enrollment in Medicaid vs commercial insurance during months 3 to 12 post partum.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were the rate and number of primary care and outpatient visits, and total out-of-pocket spending during months 3 to 12 post partum. Secondary outcomes were the rate and number of emergency department visits and hospitalizations during months 3 to 12 post partum.ResultsThe 44 471 individuals in the sample had a mean (SD) age of 26.8 (5.50) years. Self-reported race and ethnicity included 1279 (2.9%) Asian individuals, 4028 (9.1%) Black individuals, 33 534 (75.4%) White individuals, as well as 5630 (12.7%) individuals of other race and ethnicity (American Indian or Alaskan Native; Other Pacific Islander; and unspecified). Of these, 19 337 (43.5%) self-identified as Hispanic individuals. The sample included 42 989 individuals continuously enrolled in Medicaid and 1482 individuals continuously enrolled in commercial insurance during months 3 to 12 post partum. Compared with those continuously enrolled in Medicaid, commercially insured enrollees were older (32.2% of commercial enrollees were between the ages of 30-39 vs 27.5% of Medicaid enrollees, P < .001), less likely to be Hispanic (38.9% in commercial vs 43.7% in Medicaid, P < .001) or born in the US (15.6% in commercial vs 19.6% in Medicaid, P < .001), and more likely to be married (62.8% in commercial vs 54.8% in Medicaid, P < .001), have completed college (32.9% in commercial vs 16.5% in Medicaid, P < .001), and initiated early prenatal care (79.7% in commercial vs 72.5% in Medicaid, P < .001). In multivariable models, individuals with commercial insurance were 2.46 percentage points (95% CI, 2.12-2.79 percentage points; P < .001) more likely to attend a primary care visit and had 0.81 (95% CI, 0.70-0.92; P < .001) additional primary care visits total during months 3 to 12 post partum. Individuals enrolled in commercial insurance were 7.92 percentage points (95% CI, -8.44 to -7.40 percentage points; P = .006) less likely to visit an emergency department compared with those enrolled in Medicaid. Total adjusted per person spending was $1110 (95% CI, $509-$1710; P < .001) higher, and total out-of-pocket spending per person was $796 (95% CI, $754-$838; P < .001) higher for those enrolled in commercial insurance vs Medicaid.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, primary care use was higher and emergency department use was lower among those continuously enrolled in commercial vs Medicaid insurance during months 3 to 12 post partum. Medicaid rather than commercial insurance was associated with decreased exposure to out-of-pocket costs during months 3 to 12 postpartum for individuals with low income.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Despite healthcare reforms mandating expanded insurance coverage and reduced out-of-pocket costs for preventive care, cancer screening rates remain relatively static. No study has measured cancer screening rates for multiple tests among non-Medicare patients. METHODS:This retrospective, population-based claims analysis, conducted in 2016-2017, of commercially insured and Medicaid-insured women aged 30-59 years enrolled in IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicaid Databases (containing approximately 90 and 17 million enrollees, respectively) during 2010-2015 describes screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer. Key outcomes were (1) proportion screened for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer among the age-eligible population compared with accepted age-based recommendations and (2) proportion with longer-than-recommended intervals between tests. RESULTS:One half (54.7%) of commercially insured women aged 40-59 years (n=1,538,444) were screened three or more times during the 6-year study period for breast cancer; for Medicaid-insured women (n=78,897), the rates were lower (23.7%). One third (43.4%) of commercially insured and two thirds (68.9%) of Medicaid-insured women had a >2.5-year gap between mammograms. Among women aged 30-59 years, 59.3% of commercially insured women and 31.4% of Medicaid-insured women received two or more Pap tests. The proportion of patients with a >3.5-year gap between Pap tests was 33.9% (commercially insured) and 57.1% (Medicaid-insured). Among women aged 50-59 years, 63.3% of commercially insured women and 47.2% of Medicaid-insured women were screened at least one time for colorectal cancer. Almost all women aged 30-59 years (commercially insured, 99.1%; Medicaid-insured, 98.9%) had at least one healthcare encounter. CONCLUSIONS:Breast and cervical cancer screenings remain underutilized among both commercially insured and Medicaid-insured populations, with lower rates among the Medicaid-insured population. However, almost all women had at least one healthcare encounter, suggesting opportunities for better coordinated care.