Coalition provides small business clout to cap costs, share corporate costs.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Arizona↗
SEARCH · Search PubMed
Results for “Cost Sharing”
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Xerox utilization falls with increased cost sharing.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Costs and Cost Analysis↗
Prescription cost sharing: economic and health impacts, and implications for health policy.
Cost sharing for prescription pharmaceuticals--in the form of copayments, coinsurance, or deductibles--is now common in healthcare systems throughout the world. Although there are no studies that directly or convincingly measure the effects of prescription cost sharing on health status or treatment outcomes, cost sharing does appear to reduce utilisation of pharmaceuticals; however, more information is required concerning the relationship between cost sharing and prescription-filling behaviour. Additionally, outcomes studies are needed to define appropriate and inappropriate cost-sharing levels for particular groups of patients, based on income, disease, employment status, and other factors. Cost sharing for pharmaceuticals and other medical services is likely to increase in the near future. As a result, consumers will have a greater role in treatment decisions and will also become more interested in knowing the value of the medicines they are asked to purchase. They are therefore likely to demand pharmaceutical products that are more cost-effective and products that improve quality of life. The increased implementation of cost-sharing programmes necessitates the adoption of appropriate cost-sharing policies, which incorporate the following general principles: 1. Consumers must be provided with the information required to make informed decisions, including the value of the medication, its importance in the treatment plan, and the consequences of not having the prescription filled. 2. Aggressive or abusive cost-sharing features that deny access to optimal pharmaceutical therapy must be avoided. 3. Inappropriate cost sharing, either fixed level or percentage of the prescription cost, may affect disease control and ultimately health or functional status. 4. Cost sharing restricted to pharmaceuticals may encourage replacement of drug therapy with more expensive forms of treatment; therefore, cost sharing should apply to the full range of medical services to prevent service substitution.
Aged↗
An update on physician practice cost shares.
The 1988 physicians' practice costs and income survey (PPCIS) collected detailed costs, revenues, and incomes data for a sample of 3,086 physicians. These data are utilized to update the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) cost shares used in calculating the medicare economic index (MEI) and the geographic practice cost index (GPCI). Cost shares were calculated for the national sample, for 16 specialty groupings, for urban and rural areas, and for 9 census divisions. Although statistical tests reveal that cost shares differ across specialties and geographic areas, sensitivity analysis shows that these differences are small enough to have trivial effects in computing the MEI and GPCI. These results may inform policymakers on one aspect of the larger issue of whether physician payments should vary by geographic location or specialty.
Analysis of Variance↗
A framework for cost-sharing policy analysis.
To assess the effect of cost sharing, a framework for describing and evaluating cost-sharing programmes was constructed, followed by a comprehensive search of the international literature on the subject. The results indicated that cost sharing carries many potential advantages, one of which includes increased consumer attention to healthcare costs. However, proper design of cost-sharing programmes is necessary to mitigate regressivity and other common problems associated with many current programmes. These findings should help policy makers to understand and anticipate the effects of cost sharing, and to create innovative benefit design solutions that are targeted to promote health system goals.
Cost Sharing↗
Physician response to the United Mine Workers' cost-sharing program: the other side of the coin.
The effect of cost sharing on health services utilization is analyzed from a new perspective, that is, its effects on physician response to cost sharing. A primary data set was constructed using medical records and billing files from a large multispecialty group practice during the three-year period surrounding the introduction of cost sharing to the United Mine Workers Health and Retirement Fund. This same group practice also served an equally large number of patients covered by United Steelworkers' health benefit plans, for which similar utilization data were available. The questions addressed in this interinsurer study are: (1) to what extent does a physician's treatment of medically similar cases vary, following a drop in patient visits as a result of cost sharing? and (2) what is the impact, if any, on costs of care for other patients in the practice (e.g., "spillover effects" such as cost shifting)? Answers to these kinds of questions are necessary to predict the effects of cost sharing on overall health care costs. A fixed-effects model of physician service use was applied to data on episodes of treatment for all patients in a private group practice. This shows that the introduction of cost sharing to some patients in a practice does, in fact, increase the treatment costs to other patients in the same practice who remain under stable insurance plans. The analysis demonstrates that when the economic effects of cost sharing on physician service use are analyzed for all patients within a physician practice, the findings are remarkably different from those of an analysis limited to those patients directly affected by cost sharing.
Cost Sharing↗
The demand for prescription drugs as a function of cost-sharing.
This paper estimates how cost-sharing affects the use of prescription drugs. The data for this analysis are derived from the Rand Health Insurance Experiment (HIE), a randomized controlled trial that randomly assigned participants to insurance plans with varying coinsurance rates and deductibles. Therefore, the cost-sharing they faced was independent of their health and demographic characteristics. The paper used HIE data from four sites to estimate how drug expenditures vary by insurance plan, and to compare the plan response for drugs with that for all ambulatory expenses. The findings show that: (1) individuals with more generous insurance buy more prescription drugs; (2) the cost-sharing response for drugs is similar to the response for all ambulatory medical services; (3) the Dayton, Ohio site had significantly greater drug expenditures per capita than the other sites studied and a significantly higher proportion of drugs sold by physicians; and (4) the proportion of brand-name drugs among all drugs purchased in pharmacies was not a function of insurance plan. In the Dayton, Ohio site, a significantly higher proportion of the drugs purchased in pharmacies were brand-name rather than generic.
Deductibles and Coinsurance↗
Assessment of the effects of cost-sharing in Yugoslavia.
In this study the existing forms and amounts of cost-sharing in the Republic of Serbia (Yugoslavia) are analyzed. The level of cost-sharing is ranked according to the number and type of services involved and the relative importance with which they are viewed within the overall health-care policy of Yugoslavia. The "self-managing community of interest of health care," administratively coincident with the district, is taken as the unit of observation. Until recently, these bodies independently decided whether to introduce cost-sharing as well as the rate of cost-sharing. Therefore, the implementation of this health-policy measure differed among the districts generating inequality within health-care system. The results of simple and multiple correlation indicate that poorer districts with fewer health resources and lower levels of consumption introduced cost-sharing for more services, attempting to provide additional resources for financing of the health-care system. The multiple linear-regression model shows that population/physician ratio and the use of primary care physicians' services are the significant indicators of health-care expenditures in this territory. Considering the current economic situation in Yugoslavia and the level of development of the health-care system, the results of this cross-sectional study imply that cost-containment in health care can be achieved in a more equitable and effective manner by controlling supply of health services than by limiting demands.
Cost Allocation↗
A comparison of cost-sharing versus free care in children: effects on the demand for office-based medical care.
Using data from the community based RAND Health Insurance Experiment, the effect of cost-sharing versus free care on the use of office-based medical care in children was examined. Children from families on cost-sharing plans had a 22 percent lower probability (P less than 0.005) of having an episode of care during the study year. Both the number of episodes of care and total charges for outpatient professional services were 30 percent lower (P less than 0.005) with cost-sharing. cost-sharing reduced average charges for medical services by 30 percent (P less than 0.01) and pathology charges by 45 percent (P less than 0.005). cost-sharing reduced medical services received by 26 percent (P less than 0.05) and pathology services received by 43 percent (P less than 0.05) but did not have a significant effect on either the price for medical services or pathology services. It was concluded that there is a large difference between cost-sharing insurance plans and free care in the demand for office-based medical care in children. Cost-sharing results in children receiving fewer services, not lower priced services.
Child↗
The impact of cost sharing on emergency department use.
We studied the effect of insurance coverage on the use of emergency department services, using data from a national trial of cost sharing in health insurance. A total of 3973 persons below the age of 62 years were randomly assigned to fee-for-service health insurance plans with coinsurance rates of 0, 25, 50, or 95 per cent, subject to an income-related upper limit on out-of-pocket expenses. Persons with no cost sharing had emergency department expenses that were 42 per cent higher than those for persons on the 95 per cent plan (P less than 0.01) and about 16 per cent higher than those for persons with smaller amounts of cost sharing. Without cost sharing, emergency department visits for less serious diagnoses (e.g., abrasions) increased three times as much as did visits for more serious diagnoses (e.g., lacerations). After control for insurance, persons in the lower third of the income distribution had emergency department expenses that were 64 per cent higher than those in the upper third (P less than 0.001) and received a greater proportion of their ambulatory care in the emergency department. We conclude that the absence of cost sharing results in significantly greater emergency department use than does insurance with cost sharing. A disproportionate amount of the increased use involves less serious conditions.
Ambulatory Care↗
Income-related cost sharing in health insurance.
The vast majority of health plans in the United States require patients to meet cost-sharing requirements that are unrelated to income. Because this is highly inequitable, the authors propose a new system in which cost sharing is explicitly linked to income levels. This proposal differs from earlier proposals to relate cost sharing to income, which relied on the federal income tax system. In this plan, employers and insurers (both public and private) would collect the information necessary to relate cost sharing amounts to income. The proposal could be applied to nearly any health system reform proposal currently under discussion. The authors examine the experience of a number of U.S. firms that have already incorporated income-related cost sharing, as possible models to apply to health insurance nationwide.
Cost Sharing↗
Combining demand- and supply-side cost sharing: the case of inpatient mental health care.
Public and private payers can set the terms of demand-side cost sharing in insurance for patients and supply-side cost sharing in the form of reimbursement for providers. This paper summarizes a model in which health care utilization is affected by both demand- and supply-side cost sharing. The combined effects of these two policies are simulated in an application to inpatient mental health care. Because supply-side cost sharing (as would take place in a prospective payment system) limits cost without imposing financial risk on patients, it is preferred as a policy for restraining cost. I show in the case studied that when supply-side cost sharing is introduced, insurance coverage should improve.
Deductibles and Coinsurance↗
The effect of cost sharing on the use of chiropractic services.
OBJECTIVES: Chiropractic care is increasing in the United States, and there are few data about the effect of cost sharing on the use of chiropractic services. This study calculates the effect of cost sharing on chiropractic use. METHODS: The authors analyzed data from the RAND Health Insurance Experiment, a randomized controlled trial of the effect of cost sharing on the use of health services. Families in six US sites were randomized to receive fee-for-service care that was free or required one of several levels of cost sharing, or to receive care from a health maintenance organization (HMO). Enrollees were followed for 3 or 5 years. All fee-for-service plans covered chiropractic services. Persons assigned to the HMO experimental group received free fee-for-service chiropractic care; persons in the HMO control group had 95% cost sharing for chiropractic services. The authors calculated the mean annual chiropractic expense per person in each of the fee-for-service plans, and also predicted their chiropractic expenditures using a two-equation model. Chiropractic use among persons receiving HMO and fee-for-service care were compared. RESULTS: Chiropractic care is very sensitive to price, with any level of coinsurance of 25% or greater decreasing chiropractic expenditures by approximately half. Access to free chiropractic care among HMO enrollees increased chiropractic use ninefold, whereas access to free medical care decreased fee-for-service chiropractic care by 80%. CONCLUSIONS: Chiropractic care is more sensitive to price than general medical care, outpatient medical care, or dental care, or and nearly as sensitive as outpatient mental health care. A substantial cross-price effect with medical care may exist.
Adult↗
Effects of cost sharing in health insurance on disability days.
We assess how cost sharing for medical services affects restricted activity days (RADs) and work loss disability days (WLDs), using data from a controlled experiment. We grouped the experimental insurance plans into four categories, one providing free care and the other three requiring varying amounts of cost sharing. RADs per person per year decreased by one to two days with greater cost sharing, with the strongest effects among those of average or poor health status, especially the non-poor. Unlike RADs, WLDs showed no systematic differences by plan.
Absenteeism↗
Effects of cost sharing on seeking care for serious and minor symptoms. Results of a randomized controlled trial.
To estimate the effect of cost sharing on seeking care for serious and minor symptoms, we analyzed data for 3539 persons aged 17 to 61 from the Rand Health Insurance Experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to a free-care group or to insurance plans requiring them to pay part of the costs (cost-sharing group). Annual surveys were administered to determine if participants had serious and minor symptoms during the preceding month and whether they saw a physician. Serious symptoms were judged by a panel of physicians to warrant care in most instances; minor symptoms were judged neither to be severe nor to warrant care in most instances. The cost-sharing group was nearly one third less likely than the free-care group to see a physician when they had minor symptoms (6.3% compared with 9.0%; p less than 0.04). The free-care and cost-sharing groups did not differ significantly in seeking care for serious symptoms (22.3% compared with 17.9%; p = 0.095). However, for participants with low socioeconomic status who began the study in poor health, the prevalence of serious symptoms was higher in the cost-sharing than the free-care group (29.1% compared with 23.8%, p less than 0.004).
Adolescent↗
The effect of a cost sharing provision in Japan.
This study evaluated the effect of a 10% cost sharing provision, introduced in October 1984, on demand for medical services. We analysed the data of 1701 health insurance societies, all of which joined the National Federation of Health Insurance Societies between 1983 and 1985. The case rate (per 1000 persons) and the number of serviced days (per case) were analysed as indicators of demand for inpatient, outpatient and dental medical services. The case rate was considered to be an indicator of the patient's behaviour, while the number of serviced days was influenced by the doctor's behaviour. Multiple linear regression analysis was used with each indicator to isolate the effect of the cost sharing provision, adjusted for other variables which influenced demand for medical services. The case rate was reduced significantly in all medical services. This means that a patient was discouraged from using a medical facility by the cost sharing provision. There was little difference among medical services. The number of serviced days was also reduced significantly in all medical services. There was a large difference among medical services. The effect on outpatient service was much greater than that on any other service.
Cost Sharing↗
Effects of cost sharing on physiological health, health practices, and worry.
In a randomized trial of the effects of medical insurance on spending and the health status of the nonaged, we previously reported that patients with limited cost sharing had approximately one-third less use of medical services, similar general self-assessed health, and worse blood pressure, functional far vision, and dental health than those with free care. Of the 20 additional measures of physiological health studied here on 3,565 adults, people with cost sharing scored better on 12 measures and significantly worse only for functional near vision. People with cost sharing had less worry and pain from physiological conditions on 33 of 44 comparisons. There were no significant differences between plans in nine health practices, but those with cost sharing fared worse on three types of cancer screening and better on weight, exercise, and drinking. Overall, except for patients with hypertension or vision problems, the effects of cost sharing on health were minor.
Adolescent↗
[Willingness to share costs of health insurance].
The purpose of this investigation, undertaken in 1988, was to find out citizens' willingness to share the costs of health insurance in metropolitan Taipei. The individuals sampled were from three groups: government employee insurer GEI, Labor insurer LI, and others OT. A stratified random sampling method and a closed-format questionnaire were used in this study. A total of 300 samples were taken from GEI, 500 form LI and 300 from OT. The total number of effective questionnaires were 1065. The questionnaire had 8 parts including individual basic data, consciousness of self health conditions, knowledge of LI, knowledge of GEI, degree of satisfaction with medical services, medical care utilization, willingness of health insurance, and willingness to share costs. The results showed that most people pay, most respondents would only be willing to pay a limited amount. The different factors positively influencing a willingness to cost share were level of education, average income and knowledge of health insurance, while the degree of satisfaction towards medical services was a negative influence. Since the public is not yet willing to accept a cost-sharing system, this study was of limited value in trying to find out the explanatory or predicting factors. Nevertheless, because of the negative reactions of respondents, we are obliged to more carefully and circumspectly rethink the implementation of a cost-sharing system.
Consumer Behavior↗