Dataset Information

Accuracy of Physician Estimates of Out-of-Pocket Costs for Medication Filling

ABSTRACT: Key Points

Question

Can physicians accurately estimate a patient’s out-of-pocket expenses if they are given all the necessary information about a drug’s price and the patient’s insurance plan?

Findings

In this survey study of 371 primary care physicians, gastroenterologists, and rheumatologists, only 21% could accurately estimate out-of-pocket drug costs using information about the drug’s price and an insurance plan’s cost-sharing mechanisms, including deductibles, copays, coinsurance, and out-of-pocket maximums.

Meaning

These findings suggest that few physicians are able to estimate out-of-pocket costs accurately enough to have informed conversations about financial trade-offs with their patients. This survey study examines whether physicians can accurately estimate out-of-pocket expenses when they are given all of the necessary information about a drug’s price and a patient’s insurance plan.

Importance

One-third of US residents have trouble paying their medical bills. They often turn to their physicians for help navigating health costs and insurance coverage.

Objective

To determine whether physicians can accurately estimate out-of-pocket expenses when they are given all of the necessary information about a drug’s price and a patient’s insurance plan.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This national mail-in survey used a random sample of US physicians. The survey was sent to 900 outpatient physicians (300 each of primary care, gastroenterology, and rheumatology). Physicians were excluded if they were in training, worked primarily for the Veterans Administration or Indian Health Service, were retired, or reported 0% outpatient clinical effort. Analyses were performed from July to December 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

In a hypothetical vignette, a patient was prescribed a new drug costing $1000/month without insurance. A summary of her private insurance information was provided, including the plan’s deductible, coinsurance rates, copays, and out-of-pocket maximum. Physicians were asked to estimate the drug’s out-of-pocket cost at 4 time points between January and December, using the plan’s 4 types of cost-sharing: (1) deductibles, (2) coinsurance, (3) copays, and (4) out-of-pocket maximums. Multivariate linear regression was used to assess differences in performance by specialty, adjusting for attitudes toward cost conversations, demographics, and clinical characteristics.

Results

The response rate was 45% (405 of 900) and 371 respondents met inclusion criteria. Among the respondents included in this study, 59% (n = 220) identified as male, 23% (n = 84) as Asian, 3% (n = 12) as Black, 6% (n = 24) as Hispanic, and 58% (n = 216) as White; 30% (n = 112) were primary care physicians, 35% (n = 128) were gastroenterologists, and 35% (n = 131) were rheumatologists; and the mean (SD) age was 49 (10) years. Overall, 52% of physicians (n = 192) accurately estimated costs before the deductible was met, 62% (n = 228) accurately used coinsurance information, 61% (n = 224) accurately used copay information, and 57% (n = 210) accurately estimated costs once the out-of-pocket maximum was met. Only 21% (n = 78) of physicians answered all 4 questions correctly. Ability to estimate out-of-pocket costs was not associated with specialty, attitudes toward cost conversations, or clinic characteristics.

Conclusions and Relevance

This survey study found that many US physicians have difficulty estimating out-of-pocket costs, even when they have access to their patients' insurance plans. The mechanics involved in calculating real-time out-of-pocket costs are complex. These findings suggest that increased price transparency and simpler insurance cost-sharing mechanisms are needed to enable informed cost conversations at the point of prescribing.

SUBMITTER: Sloan C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8571653 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Expensive technologies-including robotic surgery-experience rapid adoption without evidence of superior outcomes. Although previous studies have examined perioperative outcomes and costs, differences in out-of-pocket costs for patients undergoing robotic surgery are not well understood. Objective:To assess out-of-pocket costs and total payments for 5 types of common oncologic procedures that can be performed using an open or robotic approach. Design, Setting, and Participants:A retrospective, cross-sectional, propensity score-weighted analysis was performed using deidentified insurance claims for 1.9 million enrollees from the MarketScan database from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017. The final study sample comprised 15?893 US adults aged 18 to 64 years who were enrolled in an employer-sponsored health plan. Patients underwent either an open or robotic radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy, partial colectomy, radical nephrectomy, or partial nephrectomy for a solid-organ malignant neoplasm. Statistical analysis was performed from December 18, 2018, to June 5, 2019. Exposures:Type of surgical procedure-robotic vs open. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome of interest was out-of-pocket costs associated with robotic and open surgery. The secondary outcome of interest was associated total payments. Results:Among 15?893 patients (11?102 men; mean [SD] age, 55.4 [6.6] years), 8260 underwent robotic and 7633 underwent open procedures; patients undergoing robotic hysterectomy were older than those undergoing open hysterectomy (mean [SD] age, 55.7 [6.7] vs 54.6 [7.2] years), and patients undergoing open radical nephrectomy had more comorbidities than those undergoing robotic radical nephrectomy (?2 comorbidities, 658 of 861 [76.4%] vs 244 of 347 [70.3%]). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, the robotic approach was associated with lower out-of-pocket costs for all procedures: -$137.75 (95% CI, -$240.24 to -$38.63) for radical prostatectomy (P?=?.006); -$640.63 (95% CI, -$933.62 to -$368.79) for hysterectomy (P?<?.001); -$1140.54 (95% CI, -$1397.79 to -$896.54) for partial colectomy (P?<?.001); -$728.32 (95% CI, -$1126.90 to -$366.08) for radical nephrectomy (P?<?.001); and -$302.74 (95% CI, -$523.14 to -$97.10) for partial nephrectomy (P?=?.003). The robotic approach was similarly associated with lower adjusted total payments: -$3872.62 (95% CI, -$5385.49 to -$2399.04) for radical prostatectomy (P?<?.001); -$29?640.69 (95% CI, -$36?243.82 to -$23?465.94) for hysterectomy (P?<?.001); -$38?151.74 (95% CI, -$46?386.16 to -$30?346.22) for partial colectomy; (P?<?.001); -$33?394.15 (95% CI, -$42?603.03 to -$24?955.20) for radical nephrectomy (P?<?.001); and -$9162.52 (95% CI, -$12?728.33 to -$5781.99) for partial nephrectomy (P?<?.001). Conclusions and Relevance:This study found significant variation in perioperative costs according to surgical technique for both patients (out-of-pocket costs) and payers (total payments); the robotic approach was associated with lower out-of-pocket costs for all studied oncologic procedures.

Project description:ImportanceList prices set by manufacturers for brand-name prescription drugs in the US have been increasing faster than inflation, although confidential manufacturer rebates offset some of these increases. Most commercially insured patients pay at least some out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, and higher patient spending is associated with lower adherence and worse health outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine whether price changes for brand-name drugs are correlated with changes in patient out-of-pocket spending and whether this association varies by insurance benefit design.Design, setting, and participantsA cohort study of 79 brand-name drugs with available pricing data from January 2015 to December 2017 was conducted, with data obtained from a national commercial insurance claims database.ExposuresChange in the list prices set by manufacturers and estimated net prices after rebates among non-Medicaid payers.Main outcomes and measuresChange in median out-of-pocket spending among all patients and stratified by insurance pharmacy benefit design, including high-deductible insurance plans and plans with any amount of deductibles or coinsurance.ResultsAmong 79 drugs, median increases were 16.7% (interquartile range [IQR], 13.6%-21.1%) for list prices, 5.4% (IQR, -3.9% to 11.7%) for net prices, and 3.5% (IQR, 1.4%-9.1%) for out-of-pocket spending from 2015 to 2017. Changes in list prices were correlated with changes in net prices (r = 0.34; P = .002). Overall, changes in out-of-pocket spending were not correlated with changes in list prices (r = 0.14; P = .22) or net prices (r = 0.04; P = .71). Among 53.7% of patients who paid any drug deductible or coinsurance, median out-of-pocket spending increased by 15.0%, and changes were moderately correlated with changes in list prices (r = 0.38; P = .001) but not net prices (r = 0.06; P = .62).Conclusions and relevanceSome commercially insured patients who pay only prescription drug copayments appear to be insulated from increases in drug prices. However, more than half of patients pay deductibles or coinsurance and may experience substantial increases in out-of-pocket spending when drug prices increase. Among these patients, there was no evidence that manufacturer rebates to insurers are associated with patients' out-of-pocket spending. Policies to rein in unregulated annual increases in list prices for brand-name drugs may have important consequences for patient out-of-pocket spending.