Dataset Information

Financial social protection and individual out-of-pocket costs of long-term care in the USA and Europe: An observational study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Empirical evidence informing policies aiming at ensuring affordability of long-term care (LTC) costs is limited. Combining system-level with individual-level data, we quantify the burden of out-of-pocket costs of LTC services on households in 13 European countries and the USA and explore how social protection systems impact affordability of care.

Methods

In this observational study, we use harmonised data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), collected between 2012 and 2016, and from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe, collected between 2013 and 2017. We assess the severity of LTC needs of older adults (65+) on the basis of self-reported limitations in activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs). We classify countries' social protection systems in terms of affordability and progressivity using information obtained from country officials. We examine variation in individual-level out-of-pocket LTC costs by social protection systems' affordability and progressivity.

Findings

Out-of-pocket LTC costs are heterogeneous across countries and increase with individuals' needs. In countries where LTC is more affordable and social protection systems less progressive, older adults incur significantly lower levels of LTC costs. Within Europe, not only are costs lower where systems are characterized by higher affordability and lower progressivity, but they also represent a lower share of households' disposable income.

Interpretation

Our findings indicate that the social protection systems significantly affect the level of out-of-pocket costs faced and reported by older adults with LTC needs as well as the share of their income that is devoted to pay for care.

Funding

We received funding from the National Institute on Aging (grant number R01 AG030153). The OECD programme of work on ageing and long-term care is partly funded by the European Union.

SUBMITTER: Angrisani M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9240998 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionLittle is known about the societal burden of cancer surgical care in terms of out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. The current study sought to define OOP costs incurred by patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection.MethodsPrivately insured patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection between 2013 and 2017 were identified from the IBM MarketScan database. Total and OOP costs were calculated within 1 year prior to and 1 year post surgery. A multivariable linear regression model was used to estimate total OOP costs relative to patient demographic and clinical characteristics.ResultsAmong 10,935 patients, 7289 (66.7%) had primary colon cancer while 3643 (33.3%) had rectal cancer. Median total costs were US$93,967 (IQR US$51027-168,251). Median OOP costs were US$4417 (IQR US$2519-6943), or 4.5% (IQR 2.2-8.1%) of total costs. OOP costs varied over the course of patient care; specifically, median OOP costs in the preoperative period were US$432 (IQR US$130-1452) versus US$2146 (IQR US$851-3525) in the perioperative period and US$969 (IQR US$327-2239) in the postoperative period. On multivariable analysis, receipt of chemotherapy (+US$1368, 95%CI +US$1211 to +US$1525) or radiotherapy (+US$842, 95% CI +US$626 to +US$1059) was associated with higher total OOP costs. Patients with a health maintenance organization (HMO) (-US$2119, 95% CI -US$2550 to -US$1689) or a point-of-service plan (-US$938, 95% CI -US$1385 to -US$491) had lower total OOP costs than patients with comprehensive insurance. In contrast, patients with a consumer-driven or a high-deductible health plan had considerably higher total OOP costs than patients with comprehensive insurance (+US$1400, 95% CI +US$972 to +US$1827 and +US$3243, 95% CI +US$2767 to +US$3717, respectively).ConclusionsPrivately insured colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgical resection pay a median of US$4417 in OOP costs, or 4.5% of total costs. OOP costs varied with receipt of chemotherapy or radiotherapy, region of residence, and insurance plan type.

Project description:BackgroundThe low-and middle-income countries, including Nepal, aim to address the financial hardship against healthcare out-of-pocket (OOP) payments through various health financing reforms, for example, risk-pooling arrangements that cover different occupations. World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended member states to establish pooling arrangements so that the financial risks owing to health uncertainty can be spread across population. This study aims to analyse the situation of financial protection across occupations and geography using nationally representative annual household survey (AHS) in Nepal.MethodsWe measured catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) due to OOP using two popular approaches-budget share and capacity-to-pay, and impoverishment impact at absolute and relative poverty lines. This study is the first of its kind from south-east Asia to analyse disaggregated estimates of financial protection across occupations and geography. The inequality in financial risk protection was measured using concentration index. Data were extracted from AHS 2014-15 -a cross-sectional survey that used standard consumption measurement tool (COICOP) and International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO).ResultsWe found a CHE of 10.7% at 10% threshold and 5.2% at 40% threshold among households belonging to agricultural workers. The corresponding figures were 10% and 4.8% among 'plant operators and craft workers'. Impoverishment impact was also higher among these households at all poverty lines. In addition, CHE was higher among unemployed households. A negative concentration index was observed for CHE and impoverishment impact among agricultural workers and 'plant operators and craft workers'. In rural areas, we found a CHE of 11.5% at 10% threshold and a high impoverishment impact. Across provinces, CHE was 12% in Madhesh and 14.3% in Lumbini at 10% threshold, and impoverishment impact was 1.9% in Madhesh, Karnali and Sudurpachim at US $1.90 a day poverty line.ConclusionHouseholds belonging to informal occupations were more prone to CHE and impoverishment impact due to healthcare OOP payments. Impoverishment impact was disproportionately higher among elementary occupations, agricultural workers, and 'plant operators and craft workers'. Similarly, the study found a wide urban/rural and provincial gap in financial protection. The results can be useful to policymakers engaged in designing health-financing reforms to make progress toward UHC.

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.

Project description:ImportanceOne-third of US residents have trouble paying their medical bills. They often turn to their physicians for help navigating health costs and insurance coverage.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsThis 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 measuresIn 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.ResultsThe 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 relevanceThis 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.