Annual Out-Of-Pocket Spending Clusters Within Short Time Intervals: Implications For Health Care Affordability

Financial assistance and payment plans for underinsured patients shopping for "shoppable" hospital services

Recent price transparency laws are designed to better inform patients as they compare hospital options and "shop" for health care services. In addition to prices, underinsured patients seeking care need information on financial assistance, discounts, payment plans, and upfront payment requirements to compare the affordability of care across hospitals. Little is known about the availability of this information and the experience of prospective patients seeking it. We contacted a random sample of 10% of general short-term hospitals across the United States in this "secret shopper" telephone study to assess financial options and navigation challenges faced by underinsured patients in need of a non-emergency procedure. The administrative friction was substantial. Most hospitals have 3 siloed offices for (1) financial assistance, (2) payment plans and discounts, and (3) upfront payment requirements. All relevant offices were unreachable in 3 attempted calls at 18.1% of hospitals. Among hospitals with available information, the majority have financial options for patients: 86.7% of hospitals offer financial assistance and 97.0% of hospitals offer payment plans to underinsured patients for non-emergency care. The length and terms of payments plans varied widely for hospital-administered and third-party financing arrangements. Upfront payments were sometimes required, potentially posing barriers for patients without cash or credit access.

Trends in Costs and Professional Reimbursements for Revision Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

With increasing numbers of revision total hip and total knee arthroplasties (rTHAs and rTKAs), understanding trends in related out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, overall costs, and provider reimbursements is critical to improve patient access to care.

METHODS

A large database was used to identify 92,116 patients who underwent rTHA or rTKA between 2009 and 2018. The OOP costs associated with the surgery and related inpatient care were calculated as the sum of copayment, coinsurance, and deductible payments. Professional reimbursement was calculated as total payments to the principal physician. All monetary data were adjusted to 2018 dollars. Multivariate regressions evaluated the associations between costs and procedure type, insurance type, and region of service.

RESULTS

From 2009 to 2018, overall costs for rTHA significantly increased by 35.0% and overall costs for rTKA significantly increased by 32.3%. The OOP costs for rTHA had no significant changes, while OOP costs for rTKA increased by 20.1%, with patients on Medicare plans having the lowest OOP costs. Professional reimbursements, when measured as a percentage of overall costs, decreased significantly by 4.4% for rTHA and 4.0% for rTKA, with the lowest reimbursements from Medicare plans.

CONCLUSION

From 2009 to 2018, total costs related to rTHA and rTKA significantly increased. The OOP costs significantly increased for rTKA, and professional reimbursements for both rTHA and rTKA decreased relative to total costs. Overall, these trends may combine to create greater financial burden to patients and the healthcare system, as well as further limit patients' access to revision arthroplasty care.

"You Have to Rob Peter to Pay Paul So Your Kid Can Breathe": Using Qualitative Methods to Characterize Trade-Offs and Economic Impact of Asthma Care Costs

BACKGROUND

Economic analyses often focus narrowly on individual patients' health care use, while overlooking the growing economic burden of out-of-pocket costs for health care on other family medical and household needs.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore intrafamilial trade-offs families make when paying for asthma care.

RESEARCH DESIGN

In 2018, we conducted telephone interviews with 59 commercially insured adults who had asthma and/or had a child with asthma. We analyzed data qualitatively via thematic content analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Our purposive sample included participants with high-deductible and no/low-deductible health plans. We recruited participants through a national asthma advocacy organization and a large nonprofit regional health plan.

MEASURES

Our semistructured interview guide explored domains related to asthma adherence and cost burden, cost management strategies, and trade-offs.

RESULTS

Participants reported that they tried to prioritize paying for asthma care, even at the expense of their family's overall financial well-being. When facing conflicting demands, participants described making trade-offs between asthma care and other health and nonmedical needs based on several criteria: (1) short-term needs versus longer term financial health; (2) needs of children over adults; (3) acuity of the condition; (4) effectiveness of treatment; and (5) availability of lower cost alternatives.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that cost-sharing for asthma care often has negative financial consequences for families that traditional, individually focused economic analyses are unlikely to capture. This work highlights the need for patient-centered research to evaluate the impact of health care costs at the family level, holistically measuring short-term and long-term family financial outcomes that extend beyond health care use alone.

Out-of-Pocket Spending for Non-Birth-Related Hospitalizations of Privately Insured US Children, 2017 to 2019

Importance

Privately insured US children account for 40% of non-birth-related pediatric hospitalizations. However, there are no national data on the magnitude or correlates of out-of-pocket spending for these hospitalizations.

Objective

To estimate out-of-pocket spending for non-birth-related hospitalizations among privately insured children and identify factors associated with this spending.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This study is a cross-sectional analysis of the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database, which reports claims from 25 to 27 million privately insured enrollees annually. In the primary analysis, all non-birth-related hospitalizations of children 18 years and younger from 2017 through 2019 were included. In a secondary analysis focused on insurance benefit design, hospitalizations that could be linked to the IBM MarketScan Benefit Plan Design Database and were covered by plans with a family deductible and inpatient coinsurance requirements were analyzed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

In the primary analysis, factors associated with out-of-pocket spending per hospitalization (sum of deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments) were identified using a generalized linear model. In the secondary analysis, variation in out-of-pocket spending was assessed by level of deductible and inpatient coinsurance requirements.

Results

Among 183 780 hospitalizations in the primary analysis, 93 186 (50.7%) were for female children, and the median (IQR) age of hospitalized children was 12 (4-16) years. A total of 145 108 hospitalizations (79.0%) were for children with a chronic condition and 44 282 (24.1%) were covered by a high-deductible health plan. Mean (SD) total spending per hospitalization was $28 425 ($74 715). Mean (SD) and median (IQR) out-of-pocket spending per hospitalization were $1313 ($1734) and $656 ($0-$2011), respectively. Out-of-pocket spending exceeded $3000 for 25 700 hospitalizations (14.0%). Factors associated with higher out-of-pocket spending included hospitalization in quarter 1 compared with quarter 4 (average marginal effect [AME], $637; 99% CI, $609-$665) and lack of chronic conditions compared with having a complex chronic condition (AME, $732; 99% CI, $696-$767). The secondary analysis included 72 165 hospitalizations. Among hospitalizations covered by the least generous plans (deductible of $3000 or more and coinsurance of 20% or more) and most generous plans (deductible less than $1000 and coinsurance of 1% to 19%), mean (SD) out-of-pocket spending was $1974 ($1999) and $826 ($798), respectively (AME, $1123; 99% CI, $1069-$1179).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study, out-of-pocket spending for non-birth-related pediatric hospitalizations were substantial, especially when they occurred early in the year, involved children without chronic conditions, or were covered by plans with high cost-sharing requirements.

Hospitalizations reduce health care utilization of household members

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether the financial burden of hospitalizations affects the health care utilization of household members of the admitted patient.

DATA SOURCES

We utilized health care claims data from the Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database, 2010-2015, to identify emergency hospitalizations of patients on family insurance plans and the health care utilization of the family members on those plans.

STUDY DESIGN

We used an event-study analysis to compare health care spending and utilization of family members of a hospitalized individual and family members of an individual who was hospitalized 1 year later. We examine whether such hospitalizations were associated with changes in medical spending, the frequency of ambulatory office visits, other ambulatory care, and preventive care.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

The analyses include household members of patients with an emergency admission and a length of stay between 5 and 90 days.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Unexpected hospital admissions reduced household members' health care spending and utilization by more than 6.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.2%, -4.5%) on average in the year following the hospitalization. Household members had fewer ambulatory visits with primary care physicians (PCPs), fewer referrals to specialists, and reduced utilization of other ambulatory care, including high-value preventive services. These changes were observed for both children and adults and were exacerbated if members of the household had previously been on Medicaid. The reduction in utilization was less pronounced when the admitted patient and household member shared the same PCP and when their health insurance plan had a family deductible.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with families without a hospitalized family member, family members of hospitalized individuals reduced their medical spending and utilization, including a substantial reduction in the use of preventive care. This study highlights the challenges of providing continuity in care when families face financial hardship.

Patient Out-of-Pocket Cost Burden With Elective Orthopaedic Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Out-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.

METHODS

This 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.

RESULTS

In 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.

CONCLUSION

Among 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.

Association of High-Deductible Health Plan Enrollment With Spending on and Use of Lenalidomide Therapy Among Commercially Insured Patients With Multiple Myeloma

IMPORTANCE

High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) require high upfront cost-sharing, which has been associated with suboptimal anticancer medication uptake and adherence. Whether HDHP enrollment has limited the affordability and use of lenalidomide therapy among commercially insured patients with multiple myeloma is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association of HDHP enrollment with out-of-pocket spending on and adherence to lenalidomide therapy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cohort study, data were obtained from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database for adults aged 18 to 64 years with multiple myeloma who newly initiated lenalidomide therapy between April 1, 2013, and June 30, 2017. Quantile regression and modified Poisson regression evaluated out-of-pocket spending, and group-based trajectory models and multinomial logistic regression examined patterns of and factors associated with adherence. Analyses were conducted from April to August 2020.

EXPOSURES

High-deductible health plan enrollment in the 3 months before and 6 months after initiation of lenalidomide therapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Distribution of out-of-pocket spending, the probability of paying more than $100 for the first and any lenalidomide prescription fill, and monthly lenalidomide therapy adherence using the proportion of days covered (≥80%).

RESULTS

Of the 3163 commercially insured patients who initiated lenalidomide therapy (median age, 57 years [IQR, 53-60 years for HDHP enrollees and 52-61 years for non-HDHP enrollees]), 328 (10.4%) were enrolled in HDHPs and 1769 (55.9%) were women. Among the highest spenders (95th percentile), HDHP enrollees paid $376 (95% CI, -$28 to $780) and $217 (95% CI, $106-$323) more for their first and any lenalidomide prescription fill, respectively, compared with non-HDHP enrollees in the 6 months after initiation. High-deductible health plan enrollment was also associated with an increased risk of paying more than $100 for the initial (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.30 [95% CI, 1.13-1.50]) and any (aRR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.12-1.42]) lenalidomide prescription fill. Three adherence trajectory groups were identified: those with high adherence (n = 1273), late nonadherence (n = 1084), and early nonadherence (n = 805). High-deductible health plan enrollment was not associated with adherence group assignment.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, HDHP enrollment was associated with higher out-of-pocket spending per lenalidomide prescription fill; however, no statistically significant differences in adherence patterns between HDHP and non-HDHP enrollees were observed. Patient (eg, perceptions of treatment benefits), payer (eg, out-of-pocket maximums), and clinician (eg, counseling patients on disease severity) factors may have limited the potential for nonadherence among commercially insured patients who initiated lenalidomide therapy.

Many Medicare Beneficiaries Do Not Fill High-Price Specialty Drug Prescriptions

For high-price drugs, Medicare Part D beneficiaries who do not receive a low-income subsidy must pay a percentage of the drug's price for each medication fill. Without that subsidy, which lowers out-of-pocket spending, beneficiaries typically pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for a single fill. We estimated the proportion of Part D beneficiaries in fee-for-service Medicare, with and without a subsidy, who do not initiate treatment (that is, do not fill a new prescription) with high-price Part D drugs newly prescribed for four conditions. Examining 17,076 new prescriptions issued between 2012 and 2018 for Part D beneficiaries from eleven geographically diverse health systems, we found that beneficiaries receiving subsidies were nearly twice as likely to obtain the prescribed drug within ninety days as those without subsidies. Among beneficiaries without subsidies, we observed noninitiation for 30 percent of prescriptions written for anticancer drugs, 22 percent for hepatitis C treatments, and more than 50 percent for disease-modifying therapies for either immune system disorders or hypercholesterolemia. Our findings support current legislative efforts to increase the accessibility of high-price medications by reducing out-of-pocket expenses under Medicare Part D, particularly for beneficiaries without low-income subsidies.