Search

Objectives: To study the impact of eliminating cost sharing for screening mammography on mammography rates in a large Medicare Advantage (MA) health plan which in 2010 eliminated cost sharing in anticipation of the Affordable Care Act mandate.Study Setting: Large MA health maintenance organization offering individual-subscriber MA insurance and employer-supplemented group MA insurance.Study Design: We investigated the impact on breast cancer screening of a policy that eliminated a $20 copayment for screening mammography in 2010 among 53,188 women continuously enrolled from 2007 to 2012 in an individual-subscriber MA plan, compared with 42,473 women with employer-supplemented group MA insurance in the same health maintenance organization who had full screening coverage during this period. We used differences-in-differences analysis to study the impact of cost-sharing elimination on mammography rates.Principal Findings: Annual screening rates declined over time for both groups, with similar trends pre-2010 and a slower decline after 2010 among women whose copayments were eliminated. Among women aged 65-74 years in the individual-subscriber MA plan, 44.9 percent received screening in 2009 compared with 40.9 percent in 2012, while 49.5 percent of women in the employer-supplemented MA plan received screening in 2009 compared with 44.1 percent in 2012, that is, a difference-in-difference effect of 1.4 percentage points less decline in screening among women experiencing the cost-sharing elimination. Effects were concentrated among women without recent screening. There were no differences by neighborhood socioeconomic status or race/ethnicity.Conclusions: Eliminating cost sharing for screening mammography was associated with modesty lower decline in screening rates among women with previously low screening adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High deductible—based health insurance plans require consumers to pay for care until reaching the deductible amount. However, information is limited on how well consumers understand their benefits and how they respond to these costs. In telephone interviews, we found that consumers had limited knowledge about their deductibles yet frequently reported changing their care-seeking behavior because of the cost. Poor knowledge limited the effects of the deductible design, with some consumers avoiding care for services that were exempt from the deductible. Consumers need more information and decision support to understand their benefits and to differentiate when care is necessary, discretionary, or unnecessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study to determine Medicare beneficiaries' knowledge of the benefits and cost responses of the Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plan in the U.S. The study measured awareness of the coverage gap and cost-coping behaviors such as switching medications, non-adherence and the forgoing of basic needs by the elderly in the U.S. The design, setting and participants of the telephone interview study are defined. Research showed a 40% awareness of a coverage gap in the drug plan by those interviewed, while 30% reported engaging in one of the cost-coping behaviors measured.

Background: Little information exists about the consequences of limits on prescription-drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries. Methods: We compared the clinical and economic outcomes in 2003 among 157,275 Medicare+Choice beneficiaries whose annual drug benefits were capped at $1,000 and 41,904 beneficiaries whose drug benefits were unlimited because of employer supplements. Results: After adjusting for individual characteristics, we found that subjects whose benefits were capped had pharmacy costs for drugs applicable to the cap that were lower by 31 percent than subjects whose benefits were not capped (95 percent confidence interval, 29 to 33 percent) but had total medical costs that were only 1 percent lower (95 percent confidence interval, −4 to 6 percent). Subjects whose benefits were capped had higher relative rates of visits to the emergency department (relative rate, 1.09 [95 percent confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.14]), nonelective hospitalizations (relative rate, 1.13 [1.05 to 1.21]), and death (relative rate, 1.22 [1.07 to 1.38]; difference, 0.68 per 100 person-years [0.30 to 1.07]). Among subjects who used drugs for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, or diabetes in 2002, those whose benefits were capped were more likely to be nonadherent to long-term drug therapy in 2003; the respective odds ratios were 1.30 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.23 to 1.38), 1.27 (1.19 to 1.34), and 1.33 (1.18 to 1.48) for subjects using drugs for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes. In each subgroup, the physiological outcomes were worse for subjects whose drug benefits were capped than for those whose benefits were not capped; the odds ratios were 1.05 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.00 to 1.09), 1.13 (1.03 to 1.25), and 1.23 (1.03 to 1.46), respectively, for subjects with a systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or more, a serum low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol level of 130 mg per deciliter or more, and a glycated hemoglobin level of 8 percent or more. Conclusions: A cap on drug benefits was associated with lower drug consumption and unfavorable clinical outcomes. In patients with chronic disease, the cap was associated with poorer adherence to drug therapy and poorer control of blood pressure, lipid levels, and glucose levels. The savings in drug costs from the cap were offset by increases in the costs of hospitalization and emergency department care. N Engl J Med 2006;354:2349-59. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]