Browsing by keyword "*Cost Sharing"
Now showing items 1-5 of 5
-
Effect of increased cost-sharing on oral hypoglycemic use in five managed care organizations: how much is too muchBACKGROUND: For patients with a chronic disease, increased cost-sharing for medications may lead to unintended consequences, including reduced use of medications essential for control of their disease. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was toestimate the effects of small ($1-6 per 30-day supply), moderate ($7-10), and large (>$10) increases in medication cost-sharing on 12-month trends in oral hypoglycemic (OH) use among adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We conducted a quasiexperimental study using a time series with comparison group design. Data were obtained from computerized membership, benefit, and pharmacy dispensing data of 5 managed care organizations (MCOs). A total of 13,110 12-month episodes of OH use and a medication cost-sharing increase ("intervention") were matched with 13,110 that had no increase. The dependent variable was OH average daily dose (ADD) standardized to each episode's mean OH ADD in the 6-month preintervention period. The principal independent variable was change in cost per 30-day OH supply between the 6-month pre- and postintervention periods. Effects of changes in cost-sharing on OH ADD were estimated using segmented time series regression. RESULTS: Episodes with >$10 increase in cost-sharing had significantly (alpha=0.05) decreased OH ADD in the postintervention period. At 6 months after this increase, OH ADD had decreased by 18.5% from that predicted from the preintervention trend. Episodes with a $1 to $10 increase in cost-sharing and those with no increase in cost-sharing had significant linear increases in OH use over the 12-month period. CONCLUSIONS: Large increases in medication cost-sharing were associated with immediate and persistent reductions in OH use. Small and moderate increases had little effect on OH use in the 6-month period after the increase.
-
Impact of decreasing copayments on medication adherence within a disease management environmentThis paper estimates the effects of a large employer's value-based insurance initiative designed to improve adherence to recommended treatment regimens. The intervention reduced copayments for five chronic medication classes in the context of a disease management (DM) program. Compared to a control employer that used the same DM program, adherence to medications in the value-based intervention increased for four of five medication classes, reducing nonadherence by 7-14 percent. The results demonstrate the potential for copayment reductions for highly valued services to increase medication adherence above the effects of existing DM programs.
-
Linking cost sharing to value: an unrivaled yet unrealized public health opportunityAs the financial burden of cost sharing continues to rise, patients increasingly avoid necessary care, thereby contributing to the high morbidity and mortality of the U.S. population compared with that of other developed countries. The rationale for cost sharing is often based on the moral hazard argument, which states that individuals may overuse care if they do not share in its costs. We evaluate this argument in detail, using it to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate settings for cost sharing. Cost sharing may be appropriate when health services are of low value (low ratio of benefits to costs), whereas it is inappropriate when health services are of high value (high ratio of benefits to costs). In practice, cost sharing is rarely linked to value, and therefore much of the cost sharing that currently occurs is inappropriate and harmful. Cost-effectiveness analysis is an objective method to estimate the value of health services and may be a way to systematically evaluate whether cost-sharing policies are appropriate. Systematic efforts to discourage inappropriate cost sharing may improve public health.
-
Three-tiered-copayment drug coverage and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugsBACKGROUND: Previous studies of 3-tier formularies are rare, although the evidence suggests that their cost-sharing structure reduces overall drug spending. However, it is unclear how incentive-based formularies affect the selection of medications with safety advantages, or restrict the access that high-risk populations have to recommended therapies in the higher tiers. This study was designed to determine whether 3-tier formularies influence the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in a population of patients with arthritis. METHODS: This retrospective study used the 2000 MarketScan Research Database, which contains person-level claims data for employer-sponsored health plans. The sample for this study consisted of 20 868 individuals treated for osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis and using NSAIDs while enrolled in tiered drug plans (n = 32). The likelihood of any use of cyclo-oxygenase (COX-2)-selective inhibitors was determined as a function of tiered drug plan coverage, adjusting for other person-level and plan-level covariates. RESULTS: Use of COX-2-selective inhibitors decreased (63.0% vs 53.6% vs 41.6%, respectively) and use of generic NSAIDs increased (37.7% vs 40.7% vs 55.7%, respectively) as formularies incorporated 1, 2, and 3 tiers. Enrollees in 3-tier plans with arthritis and serious gastrointestinal comorbidities (odds ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.66) were significantly less likely to use COX-2-selective inhibitors compared with patients in 1-tier plans. CONCLUSIONS: Three-tier formularies appear to reduce the use of COX-2-selective inhibitors among all patients with arthritis, even those at risk of experiencing gastrointestinal complications from using nonselective NSAIDs. These findings are among the first to suggest that tiered-copayment drug plans may be influencing the selection of medications beyond generic and branded products.
-
Value-based insurance designWhen everyone is required to pay the same out-of-pocket amount for health care services whose benefits depend on patient characteristics, there is enormous potential for both under- and overuse. Unlike most current health plan designs, Value-Based Insurance Design (VBID) explicitly acknowledges and responds to patient heterogeneity. It encourages the use of services when the clinical benefits exceed the cost and likewise discourages the use of services when the benefits do not justify the cost. This paper makes the case for VBID and outlines current VBID initiatives in the private sector as well as barriers to further adoption.