The Relationship Between Prescription Copayments and Contraceptive Adherence in a New-user Cohort

Policy impacts on contraceptive access in the United States: a scoping review

Contraceptive access is influenced by policy decisions, which can expand and constrict the contraceptive options available. This study explored the impact of recent US federal policies on contraceptive access by identifying and reviewing empirical literature, which is then presented and discussed using Levesque et al.’s (2013) healthcare access framework. A scoping review was conducted to identify empirical studies (N = 96) examining the impact of recent federal policy (passed from 2009 to 2019) on contraceptive access. Most identified studies examined the role of the Affordable Care Act (n = 53) and Title X of the Public Health Service Act (n = 25), showing many benefits of both policies for contraceptive access, particularly through improved affordability, availability, and appropriateness of contraceptive care. Other identified studies examined the impact of policies funding abstinence-only sex education (n = 2) and the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program (n = 3), military policies related to the availability of contraception (n = 1), guidelines for quality contraceptive care (n = 3), Title IX of the Education Amendments (n = 4), the Violence Against Women Act (n = 1), and the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act (n = 4). Through increased outreach efforts, normalising of care, availability of services, cost subsidies, and provider competencies, recent federal policy has, overall, enhanced contraceptive access across the dimensions of healthcare access. Numerous policy and practice gaps and needs are identified, and future directions for research, policy, and practice are suggested.

Policy impacts on contraceptive access in the United States: a scoping review

Contraceptive access is influenced by policy decisions, which can expand and constrict the contraceptive options available. This study explored the impact of recent US federal policies on contraceptive access by identifying and reviewing empirical literature, which is then presented and discussed using Levesque et al.’s (2013) healthcare access framework. A scoping review was conducted to identify empirical studies (N = 96) examining the impact of recent federal policy (passed from 2009 to 2019) on contraceptive access. Most identified studies examined the role of the Affordable Care Act (n = 53) and Title X of the Public Health Service Act (n = 25), showing many benefits of both policies for contraceptive access, particularly through improved affordability, availability, and appropriateness of contraceptive care. Other identified studies examined the impact of policies funding abstinence-only sex education (n = 2) and the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program (n = 3), military policies related to the availability of contraception (n = 1), guidelines for quality contraceptive care (n = 3), Title IX of the Education Amendments (n = 4), the Violence Against Women Act (n = 1), and the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act (n = 4). Through increased outreach efforts, normalising of care, availability of services, cost subsidies, and provider competencies, recent federal policy has, overall, enhanced contraceptive access across the dimensions of healthcare access. Numerous policy and practice gaps and needs are identified, and future directions for research, policy, and practice are suggested.

Cost-sharing and adherence, clinical outcomes, health care utilization, and costs: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND: US health plans are adopting benefit designs that shift greater financial burden to patients through higher deductibles, additional copay tiers, and coinsurance. Prior systematic reviews found that higher cost was associated with reductions in both appropriate and inappropriate medications. However, these reviews were conducted prior to contemporary benefit design and medication utilization. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship and factors associated with cost-sharing and (1) medication adherence, (2) clinical outcomes, (3) health care resource utilization (HRU), and (4) costs. METHODS: A systematic review of literature published between January 2010 and August 2020 was conducted to identify the relationship between cost-sharing and medication adherence, clinical outcomes, HRU, and health care costs. Data were extracted using a standardized template and were synthesized by key questions of interest. RESULTS: From 1,995 records screened, 79 articles were included. Most studies, 71 of 79 (90%), reported the relationship between cost-sharing and treatment adherence, persistence and/or discontinuation; 16 (20%) reported data on cost-sharing and HRU or medication initiation, 11 (14%) on costsharing and health care costs, and 6 (8%) on cost-sharing and clinical outcomes. The majority of publications found that, regardless of disease area, increased cost-sharing was associated with worse adherence, persistence, or discontinuation. The aggregate data suggested the greater the magnitude of cost-sharing, the worse the adherence. Among studies examining clinical outcomes, cost-sharing was associated with worse outcomes in 1 study and the remaining 3 found no significant differences. Regarding HRU, higher-cost-sharing trended toward decreased outpatient and increased inpatient utilization. The available evidence suggested higher cost-sharing has an overall neutral to negative impact on total costs. Studies evaluating elimination of copays found either decreased or no impact in total costs. CONCLUSIONS: The published literature shows consistent impacts of higher cost sharing on initiation and continuation of medications, and the greater the cost-sharing, the worse the medication adherence. The evidence is limited regarding the impact of cost-sharing on clinical outcomes, HRU, and costs. Limited evidence suggests increased cost-sharing is associated with more inpatient care and less outpatient care; however, a neutral to no difference was suggested for other outcomes. Although increased costsharing is intended to decrease total costs, studies evaluating reducing or eliminating cost-sharing found that total costs did not rise. Today's growing cost-containment environment should carefully consider the broader impact cost-sharing has on treatment adherence, clinical outcomes, resource use, and total costs. It may be that cost-sharing is a blunt, rather than precise, tool to curb health care costs, affecting both necessary and unnecessary health care use. DISCLOSURES: This study and the development of this article were funded by the National Pharmaceutical Council. Mr Sils is an employee of the National Pharmaceutical Council. Dr Graff is a former employee of the National Pharmaceutical Council. Drs Fusco and Kistler and Ms Ruiz are employees of Xcenda. Xcenda received funding to conduct the literature review.

The association between depression and contraceptive behaviors in a diverse sample of new prescription contraception users

OBJECTIVE

Among women initiating new prescription contraception, we investigated the relationship between recent depression and a range of contraceptive behaviors.

STUDY DESIGN

We used medical and pharmacy records of 52,325 women ages 19 to 29 who initiated prescription contraception (pills, patches or rings, injectables, and long-acting reversible contraceptives) in 2014-2016 at a large integrated healthcare system in Northern California. Women had continuous enrollment for a year before and after initiating, and no records of prescription contraceptive use in the year before initiating. Depression in the year prior to initiation was dichotomized into (1) no depression indicator (reference group) or (2) depression diagnosis or redeemed antidepressant. Multinomial logistic regression models examined the associations between depression and method type initiated, and contraceptive patterns, timing of discontinuation, inconsistent use, and switching methods over a year after initiating, adjusting for sociodemographics and testing for interactions between depression and having a recent birth or abortion.

RESULTS

Women with recent depression were more likely to initiate methods other than the pill, and the association was stronger for patches or rings vs pills among those with a recent birth compared to those without. Among women initiating all methods and the pill, those with depression were more likely to discontinue their method, use it inconsistently, and switch from it than use it continuously for a year.

CONCLUSION

Women with recent depression were less likely to initiate the pill; and when the pill was initiated, those with depression were more likely to discontinue use, use it inconsistently, and switch from it.

IMPLICATIONS

Women with recent depression indicators should be followed closely to ensure they have the support they need to meet their reproductive goals. Those who wish to avoid pregnancy may benefit from methods that do not require daily use.

Out-of-pocket spending for oral contraceptives among women with private insurance coverage after the Affordable Care Act

Objectives

We aimed to identify which types and brands of oral contraceptive pills have the largest shares of oral contraceptive users in large employer plans with out-of-pocket spending and which oral contraceptives have the highest average annual out-of-pocket costs.

Study design

We analyzed a sample of medical claims obtained from the 2003-2018 IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database (MarketScan), which is a database with claims information provided by large employer plans. We only included claims for women between the ages of 15 and 44 years who were enrolled in a plan for more than half a year as covered workers or dependents. To calculate out-of-pocket spending, we summed copayments, coinsurance and deductibles for the oral contraceptive prescriptions.

Results

We found that 10% of oral contraceptive users in large employer plans still had out-of-pocket costs in 2018. Oral contraceptives with the largest share of users with annual out-of-pocket spending are brand-name contraceptives with generic alternatives. The three contraceptives with the highest average annual out-of-pocket spending were brand-name contraceptives without generic alternatives. Three of the 10 contraceptives with the largest shares of users who have annual out-of-pocket spending and 3 of the 10 contraceptives with the highest average annual out-of-pocket spending contain iron.

Conclusions

Women with health insurance are still paying out of pocket for oral contraception, and future research should investigate which health plans have fewer fully covered contraceptives and effective modes of educating providers and patients about how to maximize the no-cost coverage benefit that has been extended to women.

Implications

The Affordable Care Act eliminated out-of-pockets costs for contraception for most insured women. However, some women still pay out of pocket for certain oral contraceptive brands and types that may have covered alternatives. Providers and patients could benefit from more education on how to maximize the no-cost coverage benefit extended to women.