Access to High-Cost Medications After a Cap on Monthly Out-of-Pocket Spending in California.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Taylor EA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8463936 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Access to High-Cost Medications After a Cap on Monthly Out-of-Pocket Spending in California.
Taylor Erin Audrey EA Buttorff Christine C Pegany Vishaal V Petersen Lindsay L Mangiaracino Allison A Wolf Emory E Lang Lance L
JAMA network open 20210901 9
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11344237 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this study, we analyzed healthcare provision and health expenditure across six Mediterranean countries that adopt the National Health System (Beveridge model) and that form part of the European Union (EU) with the main aim being that of analyzing and comparing out-of-pocket health spending in countries with a European Mediterranean connection. To this end, we considered various economic indicators and statistics to derive commonalities and differences across these countries and also compared trends in these indicators to those observed across the rest of the EU. We then analyzed these findings in light of other data related to the quality of healthcare delivery and the infrastructure of the health system and discussed recent developments in healthcare within each country and the main challenges faced by the respective health systems. The results show that on average, Mediterranean countries spend less on total healthcare expenditure (THE) than the EU average, both as a proportion of GDP, as well as in per capita terms. This is primarily driven by lower-than-EU-average public funding of healthcare. The 2008/2009 macro-economic and financial crisis had a significant impact on the countries under review, and explains the persistent reductions in public health spending as part of the austerity measures put in force across sectors. On the flipside, Mediterranean countries have a higher presence of private health providers in total funding, thereby explaining the higher Out-of-Pocket (OOPs) health expenditures in these countries relative to the EU-average. With regard to the overall health infrastructure in these countries, we observed that although the supply of physicians is largely in line with the rest of the EU, there is under-supply when it comes to hospital beds. This may be symptomatic of lower government funding. Nonetheless, all countries score highly in the evaluation of the quality of health services, as recorded by international rankings like the WHO's 2000 metric, whereas health system performance indicators, namely mortality rates and life expectancy reveal favorable health outcomes in the Mediterranean EU countries. The findings in this paper may be seen in light of the Mediterranean region's lifestyle in terms of diet, health behavior, health beliefs and shared culture. In particular, the higher out-of-pocket expenditure may reflect the tendency for one-to-one relationships with private clinicians and the pursuit of person-centered care (1). Additionally, the Mediterranean people may not be as disciplined as their European counterparts in accessing and using the public health sector. The lower THE also reflects the fact that the Mediterranean countries are less wealthy than the more economically-advanced European countries.
| S-EPMC5974227 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11388030 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Medicare Part D has no cap on beneficiaries' out-of-pocket spending for outpatient prescription drugs, and, unlike Medicare Parts A and B, beneficiaries are prohibited from purchasing supplemental insurance that could provide such a cap. Historically, most beneficiaries whose annual Part D spending reached the catastrophic level were protected from unlimited personal liability by the Low-Income Subsidy (LIS). However, we found that the proportion of beneficiaries whose spending reached that level but did not qualify for the subsidy-and therefore remained liable for coinsurance-increased rapidly, from 18 percent in 2007 to 28 percent in 2015. Moreover, average total per person per year spending grew much more rapidly for those who did not qualify for the LIS than for those who did, primarily because of differences in price and utilization trends for the drugs that represented disproportionately large shares of their spending. We estimated that a cap for all Part D enrollees in 2015 would have raised monthly premiums by only $0.40-$1.31 per member.
| S-EPMC7268910 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Patients are increasingly responsible for direct medical expenditures with a growth in out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses, which can impede access to care and affect treatment. This study aims to investigate the impact of capitation on OOP expenses for surgical and presurgical treatment for thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) joint arthritis. Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of thumb CMC arthritis who underwent surgery (2009-2016) comprised our study cohort. Sociodemographic data, total cost, and OOP expenses were collected at the time of surgery and 2 years prior. Patients were stratified by insurance type: fee-for-service (FFS), managed care (MC), Medicare-MC, and Medicare-FFS. Capitated plans were included in the MC and Medicare-MC groups. A generalized linear regression was performed to investigate the association between OOP expenses and insurance type. Results: Our cohort consisted of 7780 patients with FFS insurance, 953 with MC insurance, 2136 with Medicare-FFS, and 265 with Medicare-MC. There was no difference in total costs for FFS and MC (FFS $7281 vs. MC $7306, P = .73; Medicare-FFS $6663 vs. Medicare-MC $6183, P = .19). However, patients with FFS incurred significantly greater OOP costs (FFS $952 vs. MC $434, P < .01; Medicare-FFS $343 vs. Medicare-MC $232, P < .01). In the adjusted regression, MC, Medicare-FFS, and Medicare-MC had approximately 21% to 46% of the predicted OOP expenses of patients with FFS plans (P < .01). Conclusion: Despite similar total costs, OOP expenses were significantly greater for patients with FFS or Medicare-FFS insurance. With healthcare costs transitioning to patients, providers should consider cost sharing when conferring care to help alleviate the financial burden placed on patients.
| S-EPMC8647315 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Among privately insured children, the proportion of inflation-adjusted total health care spending accounted for by orphan drugs increased from 4.0 percent to 6.6 percent between 2013 and 2018. This increase was largely driven by price growth. Mean annual out-of-pocket spending for orphan drugs rose from $486 to $866 and was higher for children than adults.
| S-EPMC7968887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:With total and out-of-pocket spending for oral oncolytics rising, there is increased interest in choosing oncology treatments based on their clinical value relative to cost. OBJECTIVE:To determine if out-of-pocket spending varied for higher versus lower benefit oral oncology drugs reimbursed by commercial insurers. METHODS:This study was a retrospective analysis of commercial insurer prescription drug claims filed between 2007 and 2014 for 13 oral oncolytics approved before 2009. We calculated mean monthly out-of-pocket payment for each fill by patient. We then categorized oral oncolytics by their overall and progression-free survival benefits for each FDA-approved indication, using evidence from published studies. We assessed the relationship of survival benefit with mean monthly out-of-pocket payment, adjusting for demographic and plan characteristics. RESULTS:Our population included 44,113 patients aged 18-65 years (mean 52.5 [SD 9.4]) with a cancer diagnosis who filled 731,354 prescriptions. The most commonly represented oncolytics were imatinib (37.4% of fills), lenalidomide (17.7% of fills), and dasatinib (10.0% of fills). Approximately 32.3% of fills were for drug-indication pairs with an overall survival benefit of 4+ years. In adjusted analyses, there was no clear pattern to suggest that out-of-pocket payments differed with drug indication-specific survival benefits. Drugs for indications providing > 0 to 1 year of overall survival benefit were significantly more likely to have a lower out-of-pocket payment versus those prescribed off-label, but there were no significant differences in out-of-pocket payments between drugs and associated indications in any other survival category versus drugs used off-label. CONCLUSIONS:Out-of-pocket payments for oral oncolytics were not clearly related to indication-specific value in commercially insured patients. This finding suggests that despite increased attention to value- and indication-based drug pricing, cost sharing for oral oncolytics does not currently reflect these goals. DISCLOSURES:This project was supported by Research Scholar Grant RSGI-14-030-01-CPHPS from the American Cancer Society; the NIH Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health (BIRCWH) K12 Program; the North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute (UL1TR001111) Grant; and K24CA181510 from the National Cancer Institute. The authors have no disclosures. Data from this study were presented at the 2017 American Society for Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting on June 5, 2017, in Chicago, Illinois.
| S-EPMC6052860 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesMany patients report financial stress following hospitalization for COVID-19. Although many COVID-19 survivors require extensive care after discharge, the degree to which this care contributes to financial stress is unclear. Using national data, we assessed out-of-pocket spending during the 180 days after discharge among patients hospitalized for COVID-19.Study designRetrospective cohort analysis of Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart, a national database of medical and pharmacy claims.MethodsAmong privately insured and Medicare Advantage patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between March and June 2020, we calculated median out-of-pocket spending during the 180 days after discharge. For comparison, we repeated this calculation among patients hospitalized for pneumonia.ResultsOf 7932 patients with COVID-19 included in analyses, 2061 (26.0%) had private insurance. Among privately insured and Medicare Advantage patients, median (25th-75th percentile) out-of-pocket spending after discharge was $287 ($59-$842) and $271 ($63-$783), respectively. Out-of-pocket spending exceeded $2000 for 10.9% and 9.3% of these patients, respectively. Among privately insured and Medicare Advantage patients hospitalized for pneumonia, median (25th-75th percentile) out-of-pocket spending after discharge was $276 ($62-$836) and $570 ($181-$1466). Out-of-pocket spending exceeded $2000 for 12.1% and 17.2% of these patients, respectively.ConclusionsFor most patients hospitalized for COVID-19, postdischarge care may not be a major source of financial stress. Although this is reassuring, our findings also suggest that a sizable minority of COVID-19 survivors have substantial out-of-pocket spending after discharge. These survivors could be particularly vulnerable to financial toxicity if they also receive bills for the hospitalization owing to the expiration of insurer cost-sharing waivers. Insurers should consider this possibility when deciding whether to reinstate cost-sharing waivers for COVID-19 hospitalizations.
| S-EPMC9826666 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reliable estimates of the lifetime risk of using a nursing home and the associated out-of-pocket costs are important for the saving decisions by individuals and families, and for the purchase of long-term care insurance. We used data on up to 18 y of nursing home use and out-of-pocket costs drawn from the Health and Retirement Study, a longitudinal household survey representative of the older US population. We accumulated the use and spending by individuals over many years, and we developed and used an individual-level matching method to account for use before and after the observation period. In addition, for forecasting, we estimated a dynamic parametric model of nursing home use and spending. We found that 56% of persons aged 57-61 will stay at least one night in a nursing home during their lifetimes, but only 32% of the cohort will pay anything out of pocket. Averaged over all persons, total out-of-pocket expenditures looking forward from age 57 were approximately $7,300, discounted at 3% per year. However, the 95th percentile of spending was almost $47,000. We conclude that the percentage of people ever staying in nursing homes is substantially higher than previous estimates, at least partly due to an increase in nursing home episodes of short duration. Average lifetime out-of-pocket costs may be affordable, but some people will incur much higher costs.
| S-EPMC5603996 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceRising out-of-pocket costs of maternal health care for people with commercial insurance may affect use of health care and outcomes. There are stark racial and ethnic disparities in outcomes, but little is known about differences in spending.ObjectiveTo measure differences in out-of-pocket spending for maternity care by race and ethnicity.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cross-sectional study used administrative data from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022, for pregnancies, deliveries, and 42-day postpartum care. Participants were continuously enrolled during pregnancy, delivery, and 42 days post partum (collectively termed maternity episode).ExposuresThe primary characteristic of interest was the birthing person's race and ethnicity.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was total out-of-pocket spending during the maternity episode. Out-of-pocket spending was measured separately for the pregnancy period, prenatal services, and delivery, by type of cost sharing, and as a percentage of the median household income in the patient's census tract (using American Community Survey data). Race and ethnicity were measured via self-report and imputation.ResultsThe analytic sample included 87 253 maternity episodes among 76 826 unique birthing persons (mean [SD] age, 32.4 [4.7] years; 99.8% female) between 2018 and 2022; among maternity episodes, 8572 birthing persons (9.8%) were Asian, 3331 (3.8%) were Black, 6872 (7.9%) were Hispanic, and 68 478 (78.5%) were White. Mean out-of-pocket spending for the maternity episode was highest among Black birthing people ($2398 [$426]), followed by Hispanic ($2300 [$572]), Asian ($2202 [$603]), and White ($2036 [$1547]) birthing people (P < .001). These differences remained statistically significant after adjusting for health and demographic characteristics. The differences were largest in the prenatal period and for coinsurance payments. Black (1003 [30.1%]) and Hispanic (2302 [33.5%]) birthing people were more likely than Asian (1569 [18.3%]) and White (12 600 [18.4%]) birthing people to be enrolled in plans with high coinsurance, but not plans with high deductibles (3317 [38.7%] for Asian, 1232 [37.0%] for Black, 2350 [34.2%] for Hispanic, and 24 515 [35.8%] for White birthing people).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, differences in out-of-pocket maternity spending among the commercially insured were associated with differences in coinsurance rates. These costs could lead people to forgo needed health care or other basic needs that support health (eg, food or housing). Changes to health plan benefit design could improve equity in out-of-pocket maternity spending and its consequences.
| S-EPMC11871542 | biostudies-literature