Horizontal and vertical equity and public subsidies for private health insurance in the U.S.

The United States offers two markedly different subsidy structures for private health insurance. When covered through employer-based plans, employees and their dependents benefit from the exclusion from taxable income of the premiums. Individuals without access to employer coverage may obtain subsidies for Marketplace coverage. This paper seeks to understand how the public subsidies embedded in the privately financed portion of the U.S. healthcare system impact the payments families are required to make under both ESI and Marketplace coverage, and the implications for finance equity. Using the Household Component of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS-HC) and Marketplace premium data, we assess horizontal and vertical equity by calculating public subsidies for and expected family spending under each coverage source and using Lorenz curves and Gini and concentration coefficients. Our study pooled the 2018 and 2019 MEPS-HC to achieve a sample size of 10,593 observations. Our simulations showed a marked horizontal inequity for lower-income families with access to employer coverage who cannot obtain Marketplace subsidies. Relative to both the financing of employer coverage and earlier Marketplace tax credits, the more generous Marketplace premium subsidies, first made available in 2021 under the American Rescue Plan Act, substantially increased the vertical equity of Marketplace financing. While Marketplace subsidies have clearly improved equity within the United States, we conclude with a comparison to other OECD countries highlighting the persistence of inequities in the U.S. stemming from its noteworthy reliance on employer-based private health insurance.

Specialty drug use for autoimmune conditions varies by race and wage among employees with employer-sponsored health insurance.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between race and ethnicity, wage status, and specialty medication (SpRx) use among employees with autoimmune conditions (AICs) is poorly understood. Insight into sociodemographic variations in use of these medications can inform health equity improvement efforts. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of race and ethnicity and wage status on SpRx use and adherence patterns among employees with AICs enrolled in employer-sponsored health insurance. METHODS: In this observational, retrospective cohort analysis, data were obtained from the IBM Watson MarketScan database for calendar year 2018. Employees were separated into race and ethnicity subgroups based on employer-provided data. Midyear employee wage data were used to allocate employees into the following annual income quartiles: $47,000 or less, $47,001-$71,000, $71,001-$106,000, and $106,001 or more. The lowest quartile was further divided into 2 groups ($35,000 or less and $35,001-$47,000) to better evaluate subgroup differences. Outcomes included monthly days SpRx-AIC supply, proportion of days covered (PDC), and medication discontinuation rates. Generalized linear regressions were used to assess differences while adjusting for patient and other characteristics. RESULTS: From a sample of more than 2,000,000 enrollees, race and ethnicity data were available for 617,117 (29.8%). Of those, 47,839 (7.8%) were identified as having an AIC of interest, with prevalence rates of AICs differing by race within wage categories. Among those with AICs, 5,358 (11.2%) had filled at least 1 SpRx-AIC prescription. Following adjustment, except for the highest wage category, prevalence of SpRx-AIC use was significantly less among Black and Hispanic subpopulations. Black patients had significantly lower SpRx-AIC use rates than White patients (≤$35,000: 4.9 vs 9.4%, >$35,000-$47,000: 5.5 vs 10.6%, >$47,000-$71,000: 8.5 vs 11.1%, and >$71,000-$106,000: 9.1 vs 12.7%; P <0.001 for all). For Hispanic patients, prevalence rates were significantly lower than White patients in 3 different wage categories (≤$35,000: 4.5 vs 9.4%, >$35,000-$47,000: 6.1 vs 10.6%, and >$71,000-$106,000: 8.6 vs 12.7%; P < 0.001). PDC and 90-day discontinuation rates did not differ among race and ethnicity groups within the respective wage bands. CONCLUSIONS: Race and ethnicity and wage-related disparities exist in SpRx use, but not PDC or discontinuation rates for treatment of AICs among non-White and low-income populations with employer-sponsored insurance, and may adversely impact clinical outcomes.

Who Provides Outpatient Clinical Care for Adults With ADHD? Analysis of Healthcare Claims by Types of Providers Among Private Insurance and Medicaid Enrollees, 2021.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize provider types delivering outpatient care overall and through telehealth to U.S. adults with ADHD. METHOD: Using employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) and Medicaid claims, we identified enrollees aged 18 to 64 years who received outpatient care for ADHD in 2021. Billing provider codes were used to tabulate the percentage of enrollees receiving ADHD care from 10 provider types overall and through telehealth. RESULTS: Family practice physicians, psychiatrists, and nurse practitioners/psychiatric nurses were the most common providers for adults with ESI, although the distribution of provider types varied across states. Lower percentages of adults with Medicaid received ADHD care from physicians. Approximately half of adults receiving outpatient ADHD care received ADHD care by telehealth. CONCLUSION: Results may inform the development of clinical guidelines for adult ADHD and identify audiences for guideline dissemination and education planning.

Paying patients to use lower-priced providers.

OBJECTIVE: Many employers have introduced rewards programs as a new benefit design in which employees are paid $25-$500 if they receive care from lower-priced providers. Our goal was to assess the impact of the rewards program on procedure prices and choice of provider and how these outcomes vary by length of exposure to the program and patient population. STUDY SETTING: A total of 87 employers from across the nation with 563,000 employees and dependents who have introduced the rewards program in 2017 and 2018. STUDY DESIGN: Difference-in-difference analysis comparing changes in average prices and market share of lower-priced providers among employers who introduced the reward program to those that did not. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: We used claims data for 3.9 million enrollees of a large health plan. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Introduction of the program was associated with a 1.3% reduction in prices during the first year and a 3.7% reduction in the second year of access. Use of the program and price reductions are concentrated among magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) services, for which 30% of patients engaged with the program, 5.6% of patients received an incentive payment in the first year, and 7.8% received an incentive payment in the second year. MRI prices were 3.7% and 6.5% lower in the first and second years, respectively. We did not observe differential impacts related to enrollment in a consumer-directed health plan or the degree of market-level price variation. We also did not observe a change in utilization. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of financial incentives to reward patients from receiving care from lower-priced providers is associated with modest price reductions, and savings are concentrated among MRI services.

Underinsurance Among Children in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: We describe the change in the percentage of children lacking continuous and adequate health insurance (underinsurance) from 2016 to 2019. We also examine the relationships between child health complexity and insurance type with underinsurance. METHODS: Secondary analysis of US children in the National Survey of Children's Health combined 2016-2019 dataset who had continuous and adequate health insurance. We calculated differences in point estimates, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), to describe changes in our outcomes over the study period. We used multivariable logistic regression adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and examined relationships between child health complexity and insurance type with underinsurance. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2019, the proportion of US children experiencing underinsurance rose from 30.6% to 34.0% (+3.4%; 95% CI, +1.9% to +4.9%), an additional 2.4 million children. This trend was driven by rising insurance inadequacy (24.8% to 27.9% [+3.1%; 95% CI, +1.7% to +4.5%]), which was mainly experienced as unreasonable out-of-pocket medical expenses. Although the estimate of children lacking continuous insurance coverage rose from 8.1% to 8.7% (+0.6%), it was not significant at the 95% CI (-0.5% to +1.7%). We observed significant growth in underinsurance among White and multiracial children, children living in households with income ≥200% of the federal poverty limit, and those with private health insurance. Increased child health complexity and private insurance were significantly associated with experiencing underinsurance (adjusted odds ratio, 1.9 and 3.5, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Underinsurance is increasing among US children because of rising inadequacy. Reforms to the child health insurance system are necessary to curb this problem.

Do high-deductible health plans affect price paid for childbirth?

OBJECTIVE: To test whether out-of-pocket costs and negotiated hospital prices for childbirth change after enrollment in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) and whether price effects differ in markets with more hospitals. DATA SOURCES: Administrative medical claims data from 2010 to 2014 from three large commercial insurers with plans in all U.S. states provided by the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI). STUDY DESIGN: I identify employer groups that switched from non-HDHPs in 1 year to HDHPs in a subsequent year. I estimate enrollees' change in out-of-pocket costs and negotiated hospital prices for childbirth after HDHP switch, relative to a comparison group of employers that do not switch plans. I use a triple-difference design to estimate price changes for enrollees in markets with more hospital choices. Finally, I re-estimate models with hospital-fixed effects. DATA COLLECTION: From the HCCI sample, childbearing women enrolled in an employer-sponsored plan with at least 10 people. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Switching to an HDHP increases out-of-pocket cost $227 (p < 0.001; comparison group base $790) and has no meaningful effect on hospital-negotiated prices (-$26, p = 0.756; comparison group base $5821). HDHP switch is associated with a marginally statistically significant price increase in markets with three or fewer hospitals ($343, p = 0.096; comparison group base $5806) and, relative to those markets, with a price decrease in markets with more than three hospitals (-$512; p = 0.028). Predicted prices decrease from $5702 to $5551 after HDHP switch in markets with more than three hospitals due primarily to lower prices conditional on using the same hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Prices for childbirth in markets with more hospitals decrease after HDHP switch due to lower hospital prices for HDHPs relative to prices at those same hospitals for non-HDHPs. These results reinforce previous findings that HDHPs do not promote price shopping but suggest negotiated prices may be lower for HDHP enrollees.

Frequency and source of prescription eyewear insurance coverage in Ontario: a repeated population-based cross-sectional study using survey data.

BACKGROUND: Insurance coverage may reduce cost barriers to obtain vision correction. Our aim was to determine the frequency and source of prescription eyewear insurance to understand how Canadians finance optical correction. METHODS: We conducted a repeated population-based cross-sectional study using 2003, 2005 and 2013-2014 Canadian Community Health Survey data from respondents aged 12 years or older from Ontario, Canada. In this group, the cost of prescription eyewear is not covered by the government unless one is registered with a social assistance program or belongs to a specific population. We determined the frequency and source of insurance coverage for prescription eyewear in proportions. We used survey weights provided by Statistics Canada in all analyses to account for sample selection, a complex survey, and adjustments for seasonal effect, poststratification, nonresponse and calibration. We compared unadjusted proportions and adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) of having insurance. RESULTS: Insurance covered all or part of the costs of prescription eyewear for 62% of Ontarians in all 3 survey years. Of those insured, 84.1%-86.0% had employer-sponsored coverage, 9.0%-10.3% had government-sponsored coverage, and 5.7%-6.8% had private plans. Employer-sponsored coverage remained constant for those in households with postsecondary graduation but decreased significantly for those in households with less than secondary school graduation, from 67.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 63.2%-70.8%) (n = 175 000) in 2005 to 54.6% (95% CI 50.1%-59.2%) (n = 123 500) in 2013-2014. Government-sponsored coverage increased significantly for those in households with less than secondary school graduation, from 29.2% (95% CI 25.5%-32.9%) (n = 76 400) in 2005 to 41.7% (95% CI 37.2%-46.1%) (n = 93 900) in 2013-2014. In 2013-2014, Ontarians in households with less than secondary school graduation were less likely than those with secondary school graduation to report employer-sponsored coverage (adjusted PR 0.79, 95% CI 0.75-0.84) but were more likely to have government-sponsored coverage (adjusted PR 1.27, 95% CI 1.06-1.53). INTERPRETATION: Sixty-two percent of Ontarians had prescription eyewear insurance in 2003, 2005 and 2013-2014; the largest source of insurance was employers, primarily covering those with higher education levels, whereas government-sponsored insurance increased significantly among those with lower education levels. Further research is needed to elucidate barriers to obtaining prescription eyewear and the degree to which affordability impairs access to vision correction.

An Analysis of a Commercial Database on the Use of Erectile Dysfunction Treatments for Men With Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the annual erectile dysfunction (ED) prevalence among men enrolled in an employer-sponsored health insurance (ESHI) plan and evaluate ED treatment profiles among those with an ED diagnosis. METHODS: A cross-sectional claims analysis was conducted using the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database, a nationally representative sample of US workers enrolled in ESHI plans. Patients aged 18-64 with at least one ED medical diagnosis claim and continuous enrollment in a given year between 2009 and 2017 were included. Among those with an ED diagnosis, utilization rates of the following ED treatments were determined: phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5I), penile prosthesis implantation, other ED treatments (eg, vacuum pump, intraurethral suppositories), combination treatment, and no insurer-paid treatments. RESULTS: Between 2009 and 2017, the annual prevalence of men with ESHI suffering from ED increased by 116%. However, in 2017, only 23% of men with an ED diagnosis received an ED therapy paid for by their ESHI plans. The proportion of men taking PDE5Is ranged from 18% in 2012 to 26% in 2015. The proportion of men with ED undergoing penile prosthesis implantation has declined in recent years (0.23% in 2009 to 0.11% in 2017). Similarly, the rate of men who received other ED treatments or combination treatment has decreased from 2009 to 2017 (0.94%-0.30% and 0.65%-0.19%, respectively). CONCLUSION: ED prevalence among men insured by an ESHI plan has notably increased, yet approximately three-quarters of these men had no claims for ED treatments, indicating substantial access gaps to treatment.

Health insurance coverage and self-employment.

BACKGROUND: Self-employed workers are 10% of the US labor force, with growth projected over the next decade. Whether existing policy mechanisms are sufficient to ensure health insurance coverage for self-employed workers, who do not have access to employer-sponsored coverage, is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether self-employment is associated with lack of health insurance coverage. DATA SOURCES: Secondary analysis of Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data collected 2014-2017. STUDY DESIGN: Participants were working age (18-64 years), employed, civilian noninstitutionalized US adults with two years of Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) participation in 2014-2017. We compared those who were employees vs those who were self-employed. Key outcomes were self-report of health insurance coverage, and of delaying needed medical care. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: Longitudinal design among individuals who were employees during study year 1, comparing health insurance coverage among those who did vs did not transition to self-employment in year 2. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: 16 335 individuals, representing 121 473 345 working-age adults, met inclusion criteria; of these, 147, representing 1 097 582 individuals, transitioned to self-employment. In unadjusted analyses, 25.7% of those who became self-employed were uninsured in year 2, vs 8.1% of those who remained employees (P < .0001). In adjusted models, self-employment was associated with greater risk of being uninsured (26.1% vs 8.0%, risk difference 18.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.2% to 26.9%, P = .0001). A time-by-employment type product term suggests that 10.0 percentage points (95%CI 0.3 to 19.7 percentage points, P = .04) of the risk difference may be attributable to the change to self-employment. Self-employment was also associated with delaying needed medical care (12.0% vs 3.1%, risk difference: 8.9%, 95% CI 3.1% to 14.6%, P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: One in four self-employed workers lack health insurance coverage. Given the rise in self-employment, it is imperative to identify ways to improve health care insurance access for self-employed working-age US adults.

High-deductible health plans and low-value imaging in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of an employer-mandated switch to high-deductible health plans (HDHP) on emergency department (ED) low-value imaging. DATA SOURCES: Claims data of a large national insurer between 2003 and 2014. STUDY DESIGN: Difference-in-differences analysis with matched control groups. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The primary outcome is low-value imaging during ED visits for syncope, headache, or low back pain. We included members aged 19-63 years whose employers offered only low-deductible (≤$500) plans for one (baseline) year and, in the next (follow-up) year, offered only HDHPs (≥$1000). Contemporaneous members whose employers offered only low-deductible plans for two consecutive years served as controls. The groups were matched by person and employer propensity for HDHP switch, employer size, baseline calendar year, and baseline year quarterly number of total and imaged ED visits for each condition. We modeled the visit-level probability of low-value imaging using multivariable logistic regression with member-clustered standard errors. We also calculated population level monthly cumulative ED visit rates and modeled their trends using generalized linear regression adjusting for serial autocorrelation. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: After matching, we included 524 998 members in the HDHP group and 5 448 803 in the control group with a mean age of approximately 42 years and 48% female in both groups. On visit-level analyses, there were no significant differential changes in the probability of low-value imaging use in the HDHP and control groups. In population-level analyses, compared with control group members, members who switched to HDHPs experienced a relative decrease of 5.9% (95% CI - 10.3, -1.6) in ED visits for the study conditions and a relative decrease of 5.1% (95%CI -9.6, -0.6) in the subset of ED visits with low-value imaging. CONCLUSION: Though HDHP switches decreased ED utilization, they had no significant effect on low-value imaging use after patients have decided to seek ED care.

Employment disruption following the diagnosis of endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Oncologic treatment has been associated with unemployment. As endometrial cancer is highly curable, it is important to assess whether patients experience employment disruption after treatment. We evaluated the frequency of employment change following endometrial cancer diagnosis and assessed factors associated with it. METHODS: A cohort of patients 18-63 years-old who were diagnosed with endometrial cancer (January 2009-December 2017) were identified in the Truven MarketScan database, an insurance claims database of commercially insured patients in the United States. All patients who were working full- or part-time at diagnosis were included and all employment changes during the year following diagnosis were identified. Clinical information, including use of chemotherapy and radiation, were identified using Common Procedural Terminology codes, and International Statistical Classification of Diseases codes. Cox proportional hazards models incorporating measured covariates were used to evaluate the impact of treatment and demographic variables on change in employment status. RESULTS: A total of 4381 women diagnosed with endometrial cancer who held a full-time or part-time job 12 months prior to diagnosis were identified. Median age at diagnosis was 55 and a minority of patients received adjuvant therapy; 7.9% received chemotherapy, 4.9% received external-beam radiation therapy, and 4.1% received chemoradiation. While most women continued to work following diagnosis, 21.7% (950) experienced a change in employment status. The majority (97.7%) of patients had a full-time job prior to diagnosis. In a multivariable analysis controlling for age, region of residence, comorbidities, insurance plan type and presence of adverse events, chemoradiation recipients were 34% more likely to experience an employment change (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.01-1.78), compared to those who only underwent surgery. CONCLUSION: Approximately 22% of women with employer-subsidized health insurance experienced a change in employment status following the diagnosis of endometrial cancer, an often-curable disease. Chemoradiation was an independent predictor of change in employment.

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.

Health Promotion Programs and Policies in the Workplace: An Exploratory Study With Alaska Businesses.

INTRODUCTION: We examined health insurance benefits, workplace policies, and health promotion programs in small to midsize businesses in Alaska whose workforces were at least 20% Alaska Native. Participating businesses were enrolled in a randomized trial to improve health promotion efforts. METHODS: Twenty-six Alaska businesses completed from January 2009 through October 2010 a 30-item survey on health benefits, policies, and programs in the workplace. We generated frequency statistics to describe overall insurance coverage, and to detail insurance coverage, company policies, and workplace programs in 3 domains: tobacco use, physical activity and nutrition, and disease screening and management. RESULTS: Businesses varied in the number of employees (mean, 250; median, 121; range, 41-1,200). Most businesses offered at least partial health insurance for full-time employees and their dependents. Businesses completely banned tobacco in the workplace, and insurance coverage for tobacco cessation was limited. Eighteen had onsite food vendors, yet fewer than 6 businesses offered healthy food options, and even fewer offered them at competitive prices. Cancer screening and treatment were the health benefits most commonly covered by insurance. CONCLUSION: Although insurance coverage and workplace policies for chronic disease screening and management were widely available, significant opportunities remain for Alaska businesses to collaborate with federal, state, and community organizations on health promotion efforts to reduce the risk of chronic illness among their employees.

Carve-out plan financial requirements associated with national behavioral health parity.

OBJECTIVES: To examine changes in carve-out financial requirements (copayments, coinsurance, use of deductibles, and out-of-pocket maxima) following the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). DATA SOURCE/STUDY SETTING: Specialty mental health benefit design information for employer-sponsored carve-out plans from a national managed behavioral health organization's claims processing engine (2008-2013). STUDY DESIGN: This pre-post study reports linear and logistic regression as the main analysis. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: NA. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Copayments for in-network emergency room (-$44.9, 95% CI: -78.3, -11.5; preparity mean: $56.2), outpatient services (eg, individual psychotherapy: -$7.4, 95% CI: -10.5, -4.2; preparity mean: $17.8), and out-of-network coinsurance for emergency room (-11 percentage points, 95% CI: -16.7, -5.4; preparity mean: 38.8 percent) and outpatient (eg, individual psychotherapy: -5.8 percentage points, 95% CI: -10.0, -1.6; preparity mean 41.0 percent) decreased. Probability of family OOP maxima use (29 percentage points, 95% CI: 19.3, 38.6; preparity mean: 36 percent) increased. In-network outpatient coinsurance increased (eg, individual psychotherapy: 4.5 percentage points, 95% CI: 1.1, 7.9; preparity mean: 2.7 percent), as did probability of use of family deductibles (15 percentage points, 95% CI: 6.1, 23.3; preparity mean: 38 percent). CONCLUSIONS: MHPAEA was associated with increased generosity in most financial requirements observed here. However, increased use of deductibles may have reduced generosity for some patients.

Effect of Carving in Pharmacy Benefits on Utilization and Costs.

BACKGROUND: Rising medical costs are a significant concern for employers offering health benefits to employees, and there is interest in identifying insurance plan designs that optimize the effect of pharmacy benefits on overall costs. For instance, employers must decide between plans that carve in pharmacy benefits (where medical and pharmacy benefits are integrated into 1 package through an insurer) versus plans that carve out pharmacy benefits (where pharmacy benefits are separately administered through a pharmacy benefit manager). Little is known about the effect of carving in pharmacy benefits on medical utilization and costs. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of carving in versus carving out pharmacy benefits on medical utilization, medical costs, and health management program participation in commercial health plans. METHODS: We performed a propensity score-matched analysis comparing carve-in and carve-out members of a regional health plan in 2018. Our primary outcomes were medical utilization (annual medical claims/1,000 members) and costs (medical costs per member per month [PMPM]). We categorized these into the following domains: inpatient, emergency department, outpatient/ambulatory surgery, urgent care, primary care, specialist services, and diagnostics (laboratory testing/imaging). We additionally assessed participation in health plan-based health management programs. RESULTS: We analyzed 9,633 carve-in members matched with 9,633 carve-out members. Compared with carving out pharmacy benefits, carving in was associated with 3.7% lower medical costs, with an $8.73 reduction in PMPM ($225.87 vs. $234.60), and no significant difference in medical utilization; significantly lower inpatient and urgent care claims (reduction of 9.29 claims/1,000 and 51.3 claims/1,000, respectively) and costs ($10.08 and $0.12 PMPM reduction, respectively); lower injectable medical therapy costs ($4.32 PMPM reduction); and higher durable medical equipment costs ($2.14 PMPM increase). Carve-in members also experienced 4.9% higher health management program participation. CONCLUSIONS: As employers attempt to understand the value of carving in versus carving out pharmacy benefits to health plans, our findings suggest that carving in pharmacy benefits is associated with reduced medical costs and hospitalizations. Our findings can assist in informing employer decision-making processes and, as a result, reducing costs of care. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Parekh was and Huang and Good are employed by the UPMC Centers for High-Value Health Care and Value-Based Pharmacy Initiatives. Manolis is employed by the UPMC Health Plan within the UPMC Insurance Services Division. Papa, Drnach, and Spiegel are employed by WorkPartners within the UPMC Insurance Services Division.

Utilization and Cost of an Employer-Sponsored Comprehensive Primary Care Delivery Model.

Importance: Primary care is increasingly delivered at or near workplaces, yet utilization and cost of employer-sponsored primary care services remain unknown. Objective: To compare the health care utilization and cost of an employer-sponsored on-site, near-site, and virtual comprehensive primary care service delivery model with those of traditional community-based primary care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study of 23 518 commercially insured employees and dependents of an engineering and manufacturing firm headquartered in southern California was performed from January 1, 2016, to July 1, 2019. A subset of the population with most (≥50%) primary care visits through employer-sponsored on-site, near-site, or virtual care clinics was matched to a subset not having most such visits through the employer-sponsored clinics using propensity score matching (n = 1983 each). In sensitivity analyses, employees were matched to dependents at neighboring firms that lacked access to the employer-sponsored primary care delivery model (additional n = 1680). Exposures: Integrated primary care, mental health, and physical therapy delivered through on-site, near-site, and virtual clinics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Utilization (inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, pharmaceutical, radiology, and laboratory visits per 1000 member-months) and spending (2019 costs per member per month in US dollars) by service type. Results: A total of 23 518 individuals (mean [SD] age, 27 [15] years; 14 604 [62.1%] male) were included in the full population sample and had been enrolled in the employer-sponsored health plan for a mean of 29 months (interquartile range, 14-48 months). Of eligible members, 5292 (22.5%) used the employer-sponsored services, with 2305 (9.8%) using them for most of their primary care. The mean (SD) cost of employer-sponsored service delivery was $87 ($32) per member month. Among the matched populations (mean [SD] age, 31 [11] years; 3349 [84.5%] male) of primary users vs control individuals, total spending was 45% lower per member per month (95% CI, 35%-55%; cost difference, -$167 per member per month; 95% CI, -$204 to -$130; P < .001) among users after adjustment. The lower spending was associated with lower spending on non-primary care services, such as emergency department (-33%; 95% CI, -44% to -22%) and hospital visits (-16%; 95% CI, -22% to -10%), despite higher spending on primary care (109%; 95% CI, 102%-116%) and mental health (20%; 95% CI, 13%-27%). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that individuals who used the models' services for most of their primary care had lower total spending despite higher primary care spending, which may be associated with self-selection of lower-risk persons to the employer-sponsored services and/or with the use of comprehensive primary care.

Contemporary Patterns of Third-line Treatments for Privately Insured Individuals With Overactive Bladder in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate utilization of third-line overactive bladder (OAB) treatments including percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS), sacral nerve stimulation (SNS), and intradetrusor botulinum toxin A (BTX) among privately insured patients and examine factors associated with their use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using MarketScan claims (2015-2017), we identified patients who underwent third-line OAB treatments based on procedure codes. Factors of interest included location, age, health plan, among others. We fit multivariable logistic regression models to estimate associations between pertinent factors with receipt of PTNS and SNS relative to BTX and associations between provider type and practice location with each treatment modality. RESULTS: We identified 7383 patients (mean age 50.9) in our cohort. SNS was used most frequently (n = 3602, 48.8%), while PTNS was used least frequently (n = 955, 12.9%). PTNS patients were more likely to reside in metropolitan areas (vs BTX: OR 1.6, 95%CI 1.3-2.1; vs SNS: OR 2.2, 95%CI 1.7-2.8), be aged 55 years or older (vs BTX: 54% vs 47%, OR 1.6, 95%CI 1.2-2.1; vs SNS: 54% vs 45%, OR 1.6, 95%CI 1.2-2.0), and be covered under a health maintenance organization (vs BTX: 17% vs 10%; vs SNS: 17% vs 10%, P <.01). Urologists were most likely to perform SNS, and gynecologists were most likely to perform BTX. 91% of PTNS procedures were performed in office settings. CONCLUSION: Among patients receiving third-line OAB treatment, PTNS was used infrequently. PTNS utilization was concentrated within urban areas, and among older patients and those covered by cost-conscious health maintenance organizations.

Medical Costs and Health Care Utilization Among Self-Insured Members with Carve-In Versus Carve-Out Pharmacy Benefits.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacy benefit can be purchased as part of an integrated medical and pharmacy health package-a carve-in model-or purchased separately and administered by an external pharmacy benefit manager-a carve-out model. Limited peer-reviewed information is available assessing differences in use and medical costs among carve-in versus carve-out populations. OBJECTIVE: To compare total medical costs per member per year (PMPY) and utilization between commercially self-insured members receiving carve-in to those receiving carve-out pharmacy benefits overall and by 7 chronic condition subgroups. METHODS: This study used deidentified data of members continuously enrolled in Cambia Health Solutions self-insured Blue plans without benefit changes from 2017 through 2018. Cambia covers 1.6 million members in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Utah. The medical cost PMPY comparison was performed using multivariable general linear regression with gamma distribution adjusting for age, gender, state, insured group size, case or disease management enrollment, 7 chronic diseases, risk score (illness severity proxy), and plan paid to total paid ratio (benefit richness proxy). Medical event objectives were assessed using multivariable logistic regression comparing odds of hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visit adjusting for the same covariates. Sensitivity analyses repeated the medical cost PMPY comparison excluding high-cost members, greater than $250,000 annually. Chronic condition subgroup analyses were performed using the same methods separately for members having asthma, coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, diabetes mellitus, depression, and rheumatoid arthritis. RESULTS: There were 205,835 carve-in and 125,555 carve-out members meeting study criteria. Average age (SD) was 34.2 years (18.6) and risk score (SD) 1.1 (2.3) for carve-in versus 35.2 years (19.3) and 1.1 (2.4), respectively, for carve-out. Members with carve-in benefits had lower medical costs after adjustment (4%, P < 0.001), translating into an average $148 lower medical cost PMPY ($3,749 carve-out vs. $3,601 carve-in annualized). After adjustment, the carve-in group had an estimated 15% (P < 0.001) lower hospitalization odds and 7% (P < 0.001) lower ED visit odds. Of 7 chronic conditions, significantly lower costs (12%-17% lower), odds of hospitalization (22%-36% lower), and odds of ED visit (16%-20% lower) were found among members with carve-in benefits for 5 conditions (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that integrated, carve-in pharmacy and medical benefits are associated with lower medical costs, fewer hospitalizations, and fewer ED visits. This study focused on associations, and defining causation was not in scope. Possible reasons for these findings include plan access to both medical and pharmacy data and data-informed care management and coordination. Future research should include investigation of integrated data use and its effect across the spectrum of integrated health plan offerings, provider partnerships, and analytic strategies, as well as inclusion of analyzing pharmacy costs to encompass total cost of care. DISCLOSURES: This study received no external funding. The study was jointly conducted by employees of Cambia Health Solutions and Prime Therapeutics, a pharmacy benefit manager servicing Cambia Health Solutions. Smith, Lam, Lockwood, and Pegus are employees of Cambia Health Solutions. Qiu and Gleason are employees of Prime Therapeutics.

Same-Sex Marriage and Gains in Employer-Sponsored Insurance for US Adults, 2008-2017.

Objectives. To estimate the effects of same-sex marriage recognition on health insurance coverage.Methods. We used 2008-2017 data from the American Community Survey that represent 18 416 674 adult respondents in the United States. We estimated changes to health insurance outcomes using state-year variation in marriage equality recognition in a difference-in-differences framework.Results. Marriage equality led to a 0.61 percentage point (P = .03) increase in employer-sponsored health insurance coverage, with similar results for men and women.Conclusions. US adults gained employer-sponsored coverage as a result of marriage equality recognition over the study period, likely because of an increase in dependent coverage for newly recognized same-sex married partners.

Out-Of-Pocket Spending For Maternity Care Among Women With Employer-Based Insurance, 2008-15.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires employer-based insurance plans to cover maternity services, but plans are allowed to impose cost sharing such as copayments and deductibles for these services. This study aimed to evaluate trends in cost sharing for maternity care among working women in employer-based plans, before and after the ACA. Our data indicate that between 2008 and 2015, average out-of-pocket spending for maternity care rose among women with employer-based insurance. This increase was largely driven by increased spending among women with deductibles. When we controlled for potential confounders, we found that out-of-pocket spending was higher for lower-income working women in 2008-13, but disparities disappeared in 2014-15 because of a continued rise in spending among higher-income working women. Policies that aim to lower out-of-pocket spending for maternity care could reduce a significant financial burden on families.