Did Access to Ambulatory Care Moderate the Associations Between Visit Mode and Ancillary Services Utilization Across the COVID-19 Pandemic Period?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: In recent years, 2 circumstances changed provider-patient interactions in primary care: the substitution of virtual (eg, video) for in-person visits and the COVID-19 pandemic. We studied whether access to care might affect patient fulfillment of ancillary services orders for ambulatory diagnosis and management of incident neck or back pain (NBP) and incident urinary tract infection (UTI) for virtual versus in-person visits. METHODS: Data were extracted from the electronic health records of 3 Kaiser Permanente Regions to identify incident NBP and UTI visits from January 2016 through June 2021. Visit modes were classified as virtual (Internet-mediated synchronous chats, telephone visits, or video visits) or in-person. Periods were classified as prepandemic [before the beginning of the national emergency (April 2020)] or recovery (after June 2020). Percentages of patient fulfillment of ancillary services orders were measured for 5 service classes each for NBP and UTI. Differences in percentages of fulfillments were compared between modes within periods and between periods within the mode to assess the possible impact of 3 moderators: distance from residence to primary care clinic, high deductible health plan (HDHP) enrollment, and prior use of a mail-order pharmacy program. RESULTS: For diagnostic radiology, laboratory, and pharmacy services, percentages of fulfilled orders were generally >70-80%. Given an incident NBP or UTI visit, longer distance to the clinic and higher cost-sharing due to HDHP enrollment did not significantly suppress patients' fulfillment of ancillary services orders. Prior use of mail-order prescriptions significantly promoted medication order fulfillments on virtual NBP visits compared with in-person NBP visits in the prepandemic period (5.9% vs. 2.0%, P=0.01) and in the recovery period (5.2% vs. 1.6%, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Distance to the clinic or HDHP enrollment had minimal impact on the fulfillment of diagnostic or prescribed medication services associated with incident NBP or UTI visits delivered virtually or in-person; however, prior use of mail-order pharmacy option promoted fulfillment of prescribed medication orders associated with NBP visits.

Assessment of Out-of-Pocket Spending for COVID-19 Hospitalizations in the US in 2020.

Importance: Many insurers waived cost sharing for COVID-19 hospitalizations during 2020. Nonetheless, patients may have been billed if their plans did not implement waivers or if waivers did not capture all hospitalization-related care. Assessment of out-of-pocket spending for COVID-19 hospitalizations in 2020 may show the financial burden that patients may experience if insurers allow waivers to expire, as many chose to do during 2021. Objective: To estimate out-of-pocket spending for COVID-19 hospitalizations in the US in 2020. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus for Academics Database, a national claims database representing 7.7 million privately insured patients and 1.0 million Medicare Advantage patients, regarding COVID-19 hospitalizations for privately insured and Medicare Advantage patients from March to September 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean total out-of-pocket spending, defined as the sum of out-of-pocket spending for facility services billed by hospitals (eg, accommodation charges) and professional and ancillary services billed by clinicians and ancillary providers (eg, clinician inpatient evaluation and management, ambulance transport). Results: Analyses included 4075 hospitalizations; 2091 (51.3%) were for male patients, and the mean (SD) age of patients was 66.8 (14.8) years. Of these hospitalizations, 1377 (33.8%) were for privately insured patients. Out-of-pocket spending for facility services, professional and ancillary services, or both was reported for 981 of 1377 hospitalizations for privately insured patients (71.2%) and 1324 of 2968 hospitalizations for Medicare Advantage patients (49.1%). Among these hospitalizations, mean (SD) total out-of-pocket spending was $788 ($1411) for privately insured patients and $277 ($363) for Medicare Advantage patients. In contrast, out-of-pocket spending for facility services was reported for 63 hospitalizations for privately insured patients (4.6%) and 36 hospitalizations for Medicare Advantage patients (1.3%). Among these hospitalizations, mean (SD) total out-of-pocket spending was $3840 ($3186) for privately insured patients and $1536 ($1402) for Medicare Advantage patients. Total out-of-pocket spending exceeded $4000 for 2.5% of privately insured hospitalizations compared with 0.2% of Medicare Advantage hospitalizations. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, few patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in 2020 were billed for facility services provided by hospitals, suggesting that most were covered by insurers with cost-sharing waivers. However, many patients were billed for professional and ancillary services, suggesting that insurer cost-sharing waivers may not have covered all hospitalization-related care. High cost sharing for patients who were billed by facility services suggests that out-of-pocket spending may be substantial for patients whose insurers have allowed waivers to expire.

Racial disparities in medication use: imperatives for managed care pharmacy.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the social unrest pervading U.S. cities in response to the killings of George Floyd and other Black citizens at the hands of police are historically significant. These events exemplify dismaying truths about race and equality in the United States. Racial health disparities are an inexcusable lesion on the U.S. health care system. Many health disparities involve medications, including antidepressants, anticoagulants, diabetes medications, drugs for dementia, and statins, to name a few. Managed care pharmacy has a role in perpetuating racial disparities in medication use. For example, pharmacy benefit designs are increasingly shifting costs of expensive medications to patients, creating affordability crises for lower income workers, who are disproportionally persons of color. In addition, the quest to maximize rebates serves to inflate list prices paid by the uninsured, among which Black and Hispanic people are overrepresented. While medication cost is a foremost barrier for many patients, other factors also propagate racial disparities in medication use. Even when cost sharing is minimal or zero, medication adherence rates have been documented to be lower among Blacks as compared with Whites. Deeper understandings are needed about how racial disparities in medication use are influenced by factors such as culture, provider bias, and patient trust in medical advice. Managed care pharmacy can address racial disparities in medication use in several ways. First, it should be acknowledged that racial disparities in medication use are pervasive and must be resolved urgently. We must not believe that entrenched health system, societal, and political structures are impermeable to change. Second, the voices of community members and their advocates must be amplified. Coverage policies, program designs, and quality initiatives should be developed in consultation with those directly affected by racial disparities. Third, the industry should commit to dramatically reducing patient cost sharing for essential medication therapies. Federal and state efforts to limit annual out-of-pocket pharmacy spending should be supported, even though increased premiums may be an undesirable (yet more equitable) consequence. Finally, information about race should be incorporated into all internal and external reporting and quality improvement activities. DISCLOSURES: No funding was received for the development of this manuscript. Kogut is partially supported by Institutional Development Award Numbers U54GM115677 and P20GM125507 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, which funds Advance Clinical and Translational Research (Advance-CTR), and the RI Lifespan Center of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBRE) on Opioids and Overdose, respectively. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Out-of-Pocket Spending for Influenza Hospitalizations in Medicare Advantage.

INTRODUCTION: Although many Medicare Advantage plans have waived cost sharing for COVID-19 hospitalizations, these waivers are voluntary and may be temporary. To estimate the magnitude of potential patient cost sharing if waivers are not implemented or are allowed to expire, this study assesses the level and predictors of out-of-pocket spending for influenza hospitalizations in 2018 among elderly Medicare Advantage patients. METHODS: Using the Optum De-Identified Clinformatics DataMart, investigators identified Medicare Advantage patients aged ≥65 years hospitalized for influenza in 2018. For each hospitalization, out-of-pocket spending was calculated by summing deductibles, coinsurance, and copays. The mean out-of-pocket spending and the proportion of hospitalizations with out-of-pocket spending exceeding $2,500 were calculated. A 1-part generalized linear model with a log link and Poisson variance function was fitted to model out-of-pocket spending as a function of patient demographic characteristics, plan type, and hospitalization characteristics. Coefficients were converted to absolute changes in out-of-pocket spending by calculating average marginal effects. RESULTS: Among 14,278 influenza hospitalizations, the mean out-of-pocket spending was $987 (SD=$799). Out-of-pocket spending exceeded $2,500 for 3.0% of hospitalizations. The factors associated with higher out-of-pocket spending included intensive care use, greater length of stay, and enrollment in a preferred provider organization plan (average marginal effect=$634, 95% CI=$631, $636) compared with enrollment in an HMO plan. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of elderly Medicare Advantage patients, the mean out-of-pocket spending for influenza hospitalizations was almost $1,000. Federal policymakers should consider passing legislation mandating insurers to eliminate cost sharing for COVID-19 hospitalizations. Insurers with existing cost-sharing waivers should consider extending them indefinitely, and those without such waivers should consider implementing them immediately.

Health Benefits In 2020: Premiums In Employer-Sponsored Plans Grow 4 Percent; Employers Consider Responses To Pandemic.

The annual Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Health Benefits Survey is the benchmark survey of the cost and coverage of employer-sponsored health benefits in the United States. The 2020 survey was designed and largely fielded before the full extent of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had been felt by employers. Data collection took place from mid-January through July, with half of the interviews being completed in the first three months of the year. Most of the key metrics that we measure-including premiums and cost sharing-reflect employers' decisions made before the full impacts of the pandemic were felt. We found that in 2020 the average annual premium for single coverage rose 4 percent, to $7,470, and the average annual premium for family coverage also rose 4 percent, to $21,342. Covered workers, on average, contributed 17 percent of the cost for single coverage and 27 percent of the cost for family coverage. Fifty-six percent of firms offered health benefits to at least some of their workers, and 64 percent of workers were covered at their own firm. Many large employers reported having "very broad" provider networks, but many recognized that their largest plan had a narrower network for mental health providers.

Financial Risk for COVID-19-like Respiratory Hospitalizations in Consumer-Directed Health Plans.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to quantify out-of-pocket spending associated with respiratory hospitalizations for conditions similar to those caused by coronavirus disease 2019 and to compare out-of-pocket spending differences among those enrolled in consumer-directed health plans and in traditional, low-deductible plans. METHODS: This study used deidentified administrative claims from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse (January 1, 2016-August 31, 2019) to identify patients with a respiratory hospitalization. It compared unadjusted out-of-pocket spending among consumer-directed health plan enrollees with that among traditional plan enrollees using difference of mean significance tests and repeated the analysis separately by age category and calendar year quarter. These data were collected on a rolling basis by OptumLabs and were analyzed in March 2020. RESULTS: Commercially insured consumer-directed health plan enrollees had significantly higher out-of-pocket spending than traditional plan enrollees, and these differences were largest among younger populations. The largest difference in out-of-pocket spending occurred during the first half of the year. CONCLUSIONS: Consumer-directed health plan enrollees may experience differential financial burden from a hospitalization related to coronavirus disease 2019. Although some insurers are waiving cost-sharing payments for coronavirus disease 2019 treatment, self-insured employers remain exempt. As of now, policy responses may be insufficient to reduce the financial burden on consumer-directed health plans enrollees with respiratory hospitalizations related to coronavirus disease 2019.

Risk Corridors, COVID-19, And The ACA.

The Supreme Court holds that the government owes insurers the full risk corridors payments due under the Affordable Care Act.