Dataset Information

Assessment of Out-of-Pocket Spending for COVID-19 Hospitalizations in the US in 2020.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Many insurers waived cost sharing for COVID-19 hospitalizations during 2020. Nonetheless, patients may have been billed if their plans did not implement waivers or if waivers did not capture all hospitalization-related care. Assessment of out-of-pocket spending for COVID-19 hospitalizations in 2020 may show the financial burden that patients may experience if insurers allow waivers to expire, as many chose to do during 2021.

Objective

To estimate out-of-pocket spending for COVID-19 hospitalizations in the US in 2020.

Design, setting, and participants

This cross-sectional study used data from the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus for Academics Database, a national claims database representing 7.7 million privately insured patients and 1.0 million Medicare Advantage patients, regarding COVID-19 hospitalizations for privately insured and Medicare Advantage patients from March to September 2020.

Main outcomes and measures

Mean total out-of-pocket spending, defined as the sum of out-of-pocket spending for facility services billed by hospitals (eg, accommodation charges) and professional and ancillary services billed by clinicians and ancillary providers (eg, clinician inpatient evaluation and management, ambulance transport).

Results

Analyses included 4075 hospitalizations; 2091 (51.3%) were for male patients, and the mean (SD) age of patients was 66.8 (14.8) years. Of these hospitalizations, 1377 (33.8%) were for privately insured patients. Out-of-pocket spending for facility services, professional and ancillary services, or both was reported for 981 of 1377 hospitalizations for privately insured patients (71.2%) and 1324 of 2968 hospitalizations for Medicare Advantage patients (49.1%). Among these hospitalizations, mean (SD) total out-of-pocket spending was $788 ($1411) for privately insured patients and $277 ($363) for Medicare Advantage patients. In contrast, out-of-pocket spending for facility services was reported for 63 hospitalizations for privately insured patients (4.6%) and 36 hospitalizations for Medicare Advantage patients (1.3%). Among these hospitalizations, mean (SD) total out-of-pocket spending was $3840 ($3186) for privately insured patients and $1536 ($1402) for Medicare Advantage patients. Total out-of-pocket spending exceeded $4000 for 2.5% of privately insured hospitalizations compared with 0.2% of Medicare Advantage hospitalizations.

Conclusions and relevance

In this cross-sectional study, few patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in 2020 were billed for facility services provided by hospitals, suggesting that most were covered by insurers with cost-sharing waivers. However, many patients were billed for professional and ancillary services, suggesting that insurer cost-sharing waivers may not have covered all hospitalization-related care. High cost sharing for patients who were billed by facility services suggests that out-of-pocket spending may be substantial for patients whose insurers have allowed waivers to expire.

SUBMITTER: Chua KP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8524307 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

Project description:ImportanceMedicare beneficiaries with cancer are at risk for financial hardship given increasingly expensive cancer care and significant cost sharing by beneficiaries.ObjectivesTo measure out-of-pocket (OOP) costs incurred by Medicare beneficiaries with cancer and identify which factors and services contribute to high OOP costs.Design, setting, and participantsWe prospectively collected survey data from 18 166 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries, including 1409 individuals who were diagnosed with cancer during the study period, who participated in the January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2012, waves of the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative panel study of US residents older than 50 years. Data analysis was performed from July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2015.Main outcomes and measuresOut-of-pocket medical spending and financial burden (OOP expenditures divided by total household income).ResultsAmong the 1409 participants (median age, 73 years [interquartile range, 69-79 years]; 46.4% female and 53.6% male) diagnosed with cancer during the study period, the type of supplementary insurance was significantly associated with mean annual OOP costs incurred after a cancer diagnosis ($2116 among those insured by Medicaid, $2367 among those insured by the Veterans Health Administration, $5976 among those insured by a Medicare health maintenance organization, $5492 among those with employer-sponsored insurance, $5670 among those with Medigap insurance coverage, and $8115 among those insured by traditional fee-for-service Medicare but without supplemental insurance coverage). A new diagnosis of cancer or common chronic noncancer condition was associated with increased odds of incurring costs in the highest decile of OOP expenditures (cancer: adjusted odds ratio, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.55-2.23; P < .001; chronic noncancer condition: adjusted odds ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.69-1.97; P < .001). Beneficiaries with a new cancer diagnosis and Medicare alone incurred OOP expenditures that were a mean of 23.7% of their household income; 10% of these beneficiaries incurred OOP expenditures that were 63.1% of their household income. Among the 10% of beneficiaries with cancer who incurred the highest OOP costs, hospitalization contributed to 41.6% of total OOP costs.Conclusions and relevanceMedicare beneficiaries without supplemental insurance incur significant OOP costs following a diagnosis of cancer. Costs associated with hospitalization may be a primary contributor to these high OOP costs. Medicare reform proposals that restructure the benefit design for hospital-based services and incorporate an OOP maximum may help alleviate financial burden, as can interventions that reduce hospitalization in this population.