Out-of-pocket costs for preventive care persist almost a decade after the Affordable Care Act

Trends in Health Care Coverage and Out-Of-Pocket Cost Barriers: A Gender Comparison

Objective: The presence of disparities in access to health care and insurance coverage can have a tremendous impact on health care outcomes. Programs like the Affordable Care Act were implemented to improve health care access and to address the existing inequities. The objective of this study was to identify any disparities that exist between males and females regarding health care coverage and out-of-pocket cost to health care. Methods: This analysis was a cross-sectional study using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey data collected between 2013 and 2018. The primary predictor was sex assigned at birth (with the binary option of male vs. female). The primary outcome was adequate health coverage. Survey participants who indicated that they had health insurance with no out-of-pocket cost barriers to receiving medical care were considered to have adequate health coverage, while participants who did not meet these criteria were considered to have inadequate health coverage. Covariates measured were age, race/ethnicity, educational level, employment status, and annual household income. SAS survey procedures and weighting methods were used to measure the association between the sex and adequate health coverage, after controlling for covariates. Results: The data spanning 6 years included 2,249,749 adults, of whom 1,898,097 (84.4%) had adequate health coverage. Females made up 55.8% (N = 1,256,243) of the total sample. About 32.6% (N = 733,216) survey participants were aged ≥65 years. Most respondents, 77.6%, were White (Non-Hispanic). Across the 6-year period, females were more likely to have health insurance but with out-of-pocket costs that served as a barrier to their medical care (adjusted odds ratios with 95% CI from 2013 to 2018 were 1.36 [1.29-1.43], 1.38 [1.32-1.46], 1.31 [1.24-1.38], 1.33 [1.26-1.40], and 1.32 [1.25-1.40], respectively). Conclusions: Females were more likely than males to indicate an out-of-pocket cost barrier to medical care despite having health insurance.

Managed competition in the United States: How well is it promoting equity and efficiency?

Managed competition frameworks aim to control healthcare costs and promote access to high-quality health insurance and services through a combination of public policies and market forces. In the United States, managed competition delivery systems are varied and diffused across a patchwork of divided markets and populations. This, coupled with extremely high national health spending per capita, makes a more unified managed competition strategy an appealing alternative to a currently struggling healthcare system. We examine the relative effectiveness of three existing programmes in the U.S. that each rely upon some principles of managed competition: health insurance exchanges instituted by the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid managed care organisations, and Medicare Advantage plans. Although each programme leverages some competitive features, each faces significant hurdles as a candidate for expansion. We highlight these challenges with a survey of academic health economists, and find that provider and insurer consolidation, highly segmented markets, and failing to incentivise competitive efficiencies all dampen the success of existing programmes. Although managed competition for all is a potentially desirable framework for future health reform in the U.S., successful expansion relies on addressing fundamental issues revealed by imperfect existing programmes.

The unexpected costs of "free" preventive care: In this first of a two-part series on the struggle to balance preventive care costs and benefits, federal laws have directed insurers to offer free cancer screens, but loopholes and uneven implementation have left many consumers holding the bag

This news section is written by a medical journalist and offers Cancer Cytopathology readers timely information on events, issues, and personalities of interest to the subspecialty. In this issue, the first of a two‐part series on the struggle to balance preventive care costs and benefits. Federal laws have directed insurers to offer free cancer screening, but loopholes and uneven implementation have left many consumers holding the bag financially.

Reallocating Cervical Cancer Preventive Service Spending from Low- to High-Value Clinical Scenarios

Timely follow-up care after an abnormal cervical cancer screening test result is critical to the prevention and early diagnosis of cervical cancer. The current inadequate and inequitable delivery of these potentially life-saving services is attributed to several factors, including patient out-of-pocket costs. Waiving of consumer cost-sharing for follow-up testing (e.g., colposcopy and related cervical services) is likely to improve access and uptake, especially among underserved populations. One approach to defray the incremental costs of providing more generous coverage for follow-up testing is reducing expenditures on "low-value" cervical cancer screening services. To explore the potential fiscal implications of a policy that redirects cervical cancer screening resources from potentially low- to high-value clinical scenarios, we analyzed 2019 claims from the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database to quantify (i) total spending on low-value cervical cancer screening and (ii) out-of-pocket costs associated with colposcopy and related cervical services among commercially insured Virginians. In a cohort of 1,806,921 female patients (ages 48.1 ± 24.8 years), 295,193 claims for cervical cancer screening were reported, 100,567 (34.0%) of which were determined to be low-value ($4,394,361 total; $4,172,777 for payers and $221,584 out-of-pocket [$2/patient]). Claims for 52,369 colposcopy and related cervical services were reported ($40,994,016 total; $33,457,518 for payers and $7,536,498 out-of-pocket [$144/patient]). These findings suggest that reallocating savings incurred from unnecessary spending to fund more generous coverage of necessary follow-up care is a feasible approach to enhancing cervical cancer prevention equity and outcomes.

PREVENTION RELEVANCE

Out-of-pocket fees are a barrier to follow-up care after an abnormal cervical cancer screening test. Among commercially insured Virginians, out-of-pocket costs for follow-up services averaged $144/patient; 34% of cervical cancer screenings were classified as low value. Reallocating low-value cervical cancer screening expenditures to enhance coverage for follow-up care can improve screening outcomes. See related Spotlight, p. 363.

Retrenchment of Wisconsin's Well Woman Program and changes in insurance coverage around the Affordable Care Act

Since before the Affordable Care Act (ACA), states have partnered with the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) to support access to cancer screening and treatment for uninsured/underinsured women. The Wisconsin Well Woman Program (WWWP) was one such program, supporting low-income women across the state. With ACA introduction, Wisconsin substantially downsized/restructured the WWWP, expecting the reduction in services to be offset by the rise in ACA-provided insurance coverage. This study assesses whether retrenchment in the WWWP following the ACA indeed prompted a differential rise in insurance coverage among the program's target population. We use a difference-in-differences (DID) design to contrast changes in county-level, target-population insurance rates, over 2008-2018, in Wisconsin counties previously most served by the WWWP vs those least served, adjusting for systematic differences across counties, including pre-policy trends. Pre-ACA (2011-2013), most-served counties had lower insurance rates by 2.5 percentage points (pp) than least-served counties; WWWP services likely compensated for some of that gap. In 2014-2015, along with WWWP's steep contraction, insurance rates rose sharply across all counties. Our primary DID analysis and event study suggest that WWWP contraction might have differentially driven more insurance take-up in most-served counties, by 1.88 pp [95 % Confidence Interval: 0.23,3.54], thus narrowing the pre-ACA gap. Sensitivity analyses suggest much smaller gains. Notwithstanding such potential insurance gains following program contraction, continued support for care navigation and coordination remain necessary to truly meet the needs of the vulnerable women previously served by the WWWP and similar programs across states.

Effect of Out-of-Pocket Costs on Subsequent Mammography Screening

OBJECTIVE

Although the Affordable Care Act eliminated cost sharing for screening mammography, a concern is that grandfathered plans, diagnostic mammograms, and follow-up testing may still lead to out-of-pocket (OOP) spending. Our study examines how OOP spending among women at their baseline screening mammogram may impact the decision to receive subsequent screening.

METHODS

The study included commercially insured women aged 40 to 41 years with a screening mammogram between 2011 and 2014. We estimated multivariate linear probability models of the effect of OOP spending at the baseline mammogram on subsequent screening 12 to 36 months later.

RESULTS

Having any OOP payments for the baseline screening mammogram significantly reduced the probability of screening in the subsequent 12 to 24 months by 3.0 percentage points (pp) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-4.8 pp decrease). For every $100 increase in the OOP expenses for the baseline mammogram, the likelihood of subsequent screening within 12 to 24 months decreased by 1.9 pp (95% CI: 0.8-3.1 pp decrease). Similarly, any OOP spending for follow-up tests resulting from the baseline screening led to a 2.7 pp lower probability of screening 12 to 24 months later (95% CI: 0.9-4.1 pp decrease). Higher OOP expenses were associated with significantly lower screening 24 to 36 months later (coefficient = -0.014, 95% CI: -0.025 to -0.003).

DISCUSSION

Although cost sharing has been eliminated for screening mammograms, OOP costs may still arise, particularly for diagnostic and follow-up testing services, both of which may reduce rates of subsequent screening. For preventive services, reducing or eliminating cost sharing through policy and legislation may be important to ensuring continued adherence to screening guidelines.