Value-based insurance design
| dc.contributor.author | Chernew, Michael E. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Rosen, Allison B. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Fendrick, A. Mark | |
| dc.date | 2022-08-11T08:10:44.000 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-08-23T17:18:14Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-08-23T17:18:14Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2007-02-01 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2011-01-19 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Health Aff (Millwood). 2007 Mar-Apr;26(2):w195-203. Epub 2007 Jan 30. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.26.2.w195">Link to article on publisher's site</a> | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0278-2715 (Linking) | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1377/hlthaff.26.2.w195 | |
| dc.identifier.pmid | 17264100 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/47809 | |
| dc.description.abstract | When 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. | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | |
| dc.relation | <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=17264100&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a> | |
| dc.relation.url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.26.2.w195 | |
| dc.subject | *Cost Sharing | |
| dc.subject | Cost-Benefit Analysis | |
| dc.subject | Federal Government | |
| dc.subject | Health Expenditures | |
| dc.subject | Humans | |
| dc.subject | Insurance Benefits | |
| dc.subject | Insurance Claim Review | |
| dc.subject | *Insurance, Health | |
| dc.subject | National Health Insurance, United States | |
| dc.subject | Organizational Innovation | |
| dc.subject | Private Sector | |
| dc.subject | United States | |
| dc.subject | *Universal Coverage | |
| dc.subject | Biostatistics | |
| dc.subject | Epidemiology | |
| dc.subject | Health Services Research | |
| dc.title | Value-based insurance design | |
| dc.type | Journal Article | |
| dc.source.journaltitle | Health affairs (Project Hope) | |
| dc.source.volume | 26 | |
| dc.source.issue | 2 | |
| dc.identifier.legacycoverpage | https://escholarship.umassmed.edu/qhs_pp/925 | |
| dc.identifier.contextkey | 1733965 | |
| html.description.abstract | <p>When 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.</p> | |
| dc.identifier.submissionpath | qhs_pp/925 | |
| dc.contributor.department | Department of Quantitative Health Sciences | |
| dc.source.pages | w195-203 |
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Impact of prescription coverage on hospital and physician costs: a case study of medicare beneficiaries with chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseBACKGROUND: It is widely believed that appropriate use of prescription medicines can reduce avoidable hospitalizations and more expensive nonpharmacologic therapies, but identifying such cost offsets in operational programs is elusive. Any possible impact would be most apparent in patients with medication-sensitive disease conditions, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study were to develop an observational study design appropriate for estimating potential cost savings in the US Medicare budget as a result of extending drug coverage to persons with particular chronic diseases and to apply these study methods, in an exploratory analysis, to a sample of Medicare beneficiaries with COPD. METHODS: Spending for drugs, hospitalizations, and physician services was compared for COPD patients with and without prescription coverage using data from the 1999 and 2000 US Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. To control for channeling bias, multivariate matching on observable variables was combined with tests for missing variable bias. The matching algorithm used propensity score weighting to ensure comparability between the 2 groups on all observed characteristics at baseline. RESULTS: Our sample comprised 462 beneficiaries with prevalent COPD in the year 2000: 384 (83.1%) had prescription coverage the entire year and 78 (16.9%) had no coverage. After adjustment, drug coverage was associated with 61% higher spending on medications and 29% lower spending on physician services (both, P < 0.05). Hospital costs appeared slightly lower for those with drug benefits, but the difference was not statistically significant. No statistically significant effects were found for services specific to COPD. However, effect sizes were large even for nonsignificant findings. CONCLUSIONS: Although this analysis did not establish a strong causal link between drug benefits and lower costs, 11 of our 12 comparisons had signs consistent with the cost-offset hypothesis.
-
Bending the cost curve? Results from a comprehensive primary care payment pilotBACKGROUND: There is much interest in understanding how using bundled primary care payments to support a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) affects total medical costs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: We compare 2008-2010 claims and eligibility records on about 10,000 patients in practices transforming to a PCMH and receiving risk-adjusted base payments and bonuses, with similar data on approximately 200,000 patients of nontransformed practices remaining under fee-for-service reimbursement. METHODS: We estimate the treatment effect using difference-in-differences, controlling for trend, payer type, plan type, and fixed effects. We weight to account for partial-year eligibility, use propensity weights to address differences in exogenous variables between control and treatment patients, and use the Massachusetts Health Quality Project algorithm to assign patients to practices. RESULTS: Estimated treatment effects are sensitive to: control variables, propensity weighting, the algorithm used to assign patients to practices, how we address differences in health risk, and whether/how we use data from enrollees who join, leave, or change practices. Unadjusted PCMH spending reductions are 1.5% in year 1 and 1.8% in year 2. With fixed patient assignment and other adjustments, medical spending in the treatment group seems to be 5.8% (P=0.20) lower in year 1 and 8.7% (P=0.14) lower in year 2 than for propensity-weighted, continuously enrolled controls; the largest proportional 2-year reduction in spending occurs in laboratory test use (16.5%, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Although estimates are imprecise because of limited data and quasi-experimental design, risk-adjusted bundled payment for primary care may have dampened spending growth in 3 practices implementing a PCMH.
-
Prescription drug benefits and use of guideline recommended medications by elderly Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes mellitusOBJECTIVES: To determine whether prescription drug benefits are associated with the use of guideline recommended medications by older persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: A national sample of Medicare beneficiaries with DM aged 65 and older and an indication for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin II-receptor blocker (ARB) use or high risk of coronary heart disease (hypertension or current smoking) who participated in the 2003 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. MEASUREMENTS: Prescription drug coverage was measured according to self-report and verified according to insurance claims. Outcome variables were use of an ACEI or an ARB (ACEI/ARB) or a statin or use of an ACEI/ARB and a statin. Survey-weighted multinomial logistic regression was used to identify the independent effect of drug coverage on one of two categories of recommended medication use (ACEI/ARB or statin or ACEI/ARB and statin) compared with the reference category of none after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and health status. RESULTS: The final study sample was 1,181 (weighted N=4.0 million). Overall, 23% had no drug coverage, 16% Medicaid coverage, 43% employer coverage, 9% Medigap coverage, and 9% Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) or state-sponsored low-income coverage. Overall, 33% received a statin and an ACEI/ARB, 44% only an ACEI/ARB or a statin, and 23% neither. After adjustment, VA and state-sponsored drug benefits were most strongly associated with combined ACEI/ARB and statin use (relative risk ratio (RRR)=4.83, 95% confidence interval (CI)=2.24-10.4)), followed by employer-sponsored coverage (RRR=2.60, 95% CI=1.67-4.03)). CONCLUSIONS: Prescription drug benefits from VA and state-sponsored drug programs are strongly associated with use of recommended medications by older adults with DM.