Project description:ImportanceImproving access to naloxone is a critical component of the nation's strategy to curb fatal overdoses in the opioid crisis. Standing or protocol orders, prescriptive authority laws, and immunity provisions have been passed by states to expand access, but less attention has been given to potential financial barriers to naloxone access.ObjectiveTo assess trends in out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for naloxone and examine variation in OOP costs by drug brand and payer.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational study analyzed US naloxone claims data from Symphony Health and associated OOP costs for individuals filling naloxone prescriptions by drug brand and payer between January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018. The data were analyzed from March 31, 2021, to April 12, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresThe main measures were trends in annual number of naloxone claims (overall, by payer, and by drug brand) and mean annual OOP costs per claim (overall, by payer, and by drug brand).ResultsOf 719 612 naloxone claims (172 894 generic naloxone, 501 568 Narcan, and 45 150 Evzio) for 2010 through 2018, the number of naloxone claims among insured patients began rapidly increasing after 2014; at the same time, the mean OOP cost of naloxone increased dramatically among the uninsured population. Comparing 2014 with 2018, the mean OOP cost of naloxone decreased by 26% among those with insurance but increased by 506% among uninsured patients. For the uninsured population, the impediment of cost was even larger for certain brands of the drug. In 2016, the mean OOP cost for Evzio among uninsured patients rose to $2136.37 (a 2429% increase relative to 2015) compared with the mean cost of generic naloxone, $72.88, and the cost of Narcan in its first year, $87.95. Throughout the period, the mean OOP costs paid by uninsured patients were higher for Evzio at $1089.17 (95% CI, $884.17-$1294.17) compared with $73.62 (95% CI, $69.24-$78.00) for Narcan and $67.99 (95% CI, $61.42-$74.56) for generic naloxone.Conclusions and relevanceIn this observational study, the findings indicated that the OOP cost of naloxone had been an increasingly substantial barrier to naloxone access for uninsured patients, potentially limiting use among this population, which constituted approximately 20% of adults with opioid use disorder.
Project description:IntroductionOut-of-pocket (OOP) costs for medical and surgical care can result in substantial financial burden for patients and families. Relatively little is known regarding OOP costs for commercially insured patients receiving orthopaedic surgery. The aim of this study is to analyze the trends in OOP costs for common, elective orthopaedic surgeries performed in the hospital inpatient setting.MethodsThis study used an employer-sponsored insurance claims database to analyze billing data of commercially insured patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgery between 2014 and 2019. Patients who received single-level anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF), single-level posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and total hip arthroplasty (THA) were identified. OOP costs associated with the surgical episode were calculated as the sum of deductible payments, copayments, and coinsurance. Monetary data were adjusted to 2019 dollars. General linear regression, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for analysis, as appropriate.ResultsIn total, 10,225 ACDF, 28,841 PLF, 70,815 THA, and 108,940 TKA patients were analyzed. Most patients in our study sample had preferred provider organization insurance plans (ACDF 70.3%, PLF 66.9%, THA 66.2%, and TKA 67.0%). The mean OOP costs for patients, by procedure, were as follows: ACDF $3,180 (SD = 2,495), PLF $3,166 (SD = 2,529), THA $2,884 (SD = 2,100), and TKA $2,733 (SD = 1,994). Total OOP costs increased significantly from 2014 to 2019 for all procedures (P < 0.0001). Among the insurance plans examined, patients with high-deductible health plans had the highest episodic OOP costs. The ratio of patient contribution (OOP costs) to total insurer contribution (payments from insurers to providers) was 0.07 for ACDF, 0.04 for PLF, 0.07 for THA, and 0.07 for TKA.ConclusionAmong commercially insured patients who underwent elective spinal fusion and major lower extremity joint arthroplasty surgery, OOP costs increased from 2014 to 2019. The OOP costs for elective orthopaedic surgery represent a substantial and increasing financial burden for patients.
Project description:BackgroundThe financial protection of the prevention provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) doesn't apply to breast MRI but only to mammography for breast cancer screening. The purpose of the study is to examine the financial burden among women who received breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for screening.MethodsThis observational study used the Marketscan database. Women who underwent breast MRI between 2009 and 2017 and had screening mammography within 6 months of the MRI were included. We compared the time trend of the proportion of zero cost-share for women undergoing screening mammography and that for MRI. We quantified out-of-pocket (OOP) costs as the sum of copayment, coinsurance, and deductible and defined zero cost-share as having no OOP cost. We conducted multivariable logistic regression and 2-part model to examine factors associated with zero cost-share and OOP costs of MRI, respectively.ResultsDuring the study period, 16 341 women had a screening breast MRI. The proportion of screening MRI claims with zero cost-share decreased from 43.1% (2009) to 26.2% (2017). The adjusted mean OOP cost for women in high-deductible plans was more than twice the cost for their counterparts ($549 vs $251; 2-sided P < .001). Women who resided in the South in the post-Affordable Care Act era were less likely to have zero cost-share and paid higher OOP costs for screening MRI.ConclusionsMany women are subject to high financial burden when receiving MRI for breast cancer screening. Those enrolled in high-deductible plans and who reside in the South are especially vulnerable financially.
Project description:IntroductionPrevious studies in 2018 and 2022 have suggested increasing inpatient burden of pneumothorax and widespread variation in management. Local trends have never been elucidated. Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (NHCT) has a well-established pleural service, serving just over 600,000. Thus, we set up a local retrospective study to look at trends in pneumothorax presentation, management strategies, length of stay, and recurrence.MethodsA coding search for 'pneumothorax' was performed for all patients attending NHCT between 2010 and 2020 was performed with local Caldicott approval. A total of 1840 notes were analysed to exclude iatrogenic, traumatic, and paediatric events. After excluding those cases, 580 remained for further analysis, consisting of 183 primary pneumothoraces (PSP) and 397 secondary pneumothoraces (SSP).ResultsMedian age for PSP was 26.5 years (IQR 17) with 69% male, and for SSP 68 years (IQR 11.5), 62% male; 23.5% of PSP and 8.6% of SSP were never smokers. The proportion of smokers and ex-smokers has not really changed over time: > 65% every year have been smokers or ex-smokers. Yearly pneumothorax incidence shows a downward trend for PSP but upwards for SSP. Median length of stay (LoS) for PSP was 2 days (IQR 2), and SSP 5 days (IQR 8), with a clear downward trend. From 2010 to 2015 > 50% PSP were managed with drain, but in 2019-2020 at least 50% managed conservatively, with a significant reduction in aspiration. Trends of recurrence for PSP are increasing, whereas for SSP is decreasing. Seventy-six (20 PSP, 56 SSP) went for surgery at the index time with 5.3% recurrence (20% recurrence in those without surgery).ConclusionsThis is the first known analysis of pneumothorax trends in a large trust in the northeast of England. The data in this study have certain limitations, including the lack of information on the size of pneumothorax and frailty indicators that may influence the decision for conservative management. Additionally, there is a reliance on clinical coding, which can introduce potential inaccuracies, and not all patient notes were accessible for analysis. Updated larger datasets should help elucidate trends better.
Project description:BackgroundOut-of-pocket costs pose a substantial economic burden to cancer patients and their families. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the literature on out-of-pocket costs of cancer care.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies that estimated the out-of-pocket cost burden faced by cancer patients and their caregivers. The average monthly out-of-pocket costs per patient were reported/estimated and converted to 2018 USD. Costs were reported as medical and non-medical costs and were reported across countries or country income levels by cancer site, where possible, and category. The out-of-pocket burden was estimated as the average proportion of income spent as non-reimbursable costs.ResultsAmong all cancers, adult patients and caregivers in the U.S. spent between USD 180 and USD 2600 per month, compared to USD 15-400 in Canada, USD 4-609 in Western Europe, and USD 58-438 in Australia. Patients with breast or colorectal cancer spent around USD 200 per month, while pediatric cancer patients spent USD 800. Patients spent USD 288 per month on cancer medications in the U.S. and USD 40 in other high-income countries (HICs). The average costs for medical consultations and in-hospital care were estimated between USD 40-71 in HICs. Cancer patients and caregivers spent 42% and 16% of their annual income on out-of-pocket expenses in low- and middle-income countries and HICs, respectively.ConclusionsWe found evidence that cancer is associated with high out-of-pocket costs. Healthcare systems have an opportunity to improve the coverage of medical and non-medical costs for cancer patients to help alleviate this burden and ensure equitable access to care.
Project description:ImportanceMany 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.ObjectiveTo estimate out-of-pocket spending for COVID-19 hospitalizations in the US in 2020.Design, setting, and participantsThis 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 measuresMean 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).ResultsAnalyses 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 relevanceIn 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.
Project description:In recent decades, rapid growth has been observed in the incorporation of sustainability into marketing. Accordingly, the contrasting relationships between them have been carefully studied to assess the relevance of one idea to the other and vice versa. In response to this change, scholars and practitioners have been tasked with exploring the trends in sustainability and marketing. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate existing literatures on both sustainability and all levels of marketing, determine the research trends and provide implications of applying the trends for future research and practices. This research has investigated only the title, abstract, and keywords of 2147 articles that were published between 2010 and 2020 in SSCI or SCIE indexed journals by applying the topic modeling based on the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model. The results show that the research trend has shifted from general sustainable concept to more environmental and industrial technology based on the empirical evidence of 14 latent topics of sustainability and marketing. This article aids in understanding the recent research trend in sustainability and marketing, and the findings will be a valuable resource for future scholars and practitioners. It contributes to both existing and future literatures by providing valuable insights from recent research trend in sustainability and marketing and by providing recommendations for future research avenue. Among other bibliometric review articles, this is the most up-to-date comprehensive and empirical article, providing overview of the research trend. Highlights • 14 research topics of sustainability and marketing over 2010–2020 were obtained from the Latent Dirichlet Allocation.• Two hot topics and one cold topic were identified.• The research trend has shifted from general sustainability concept to environmental and industrial technology.