G Solanki1, H H Schauffler. 1. University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, 94720-7360, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effect of different forms of patient cost-sharing on the utilization of clinical preventive services or if the effect varies by type of health plan. OBJECTIVES: To assess empirically the relationships between the utilization of recommended preventive services and different forms of patient cost-sharing and how the effect is mediated by type of preventive service (counseling, blood pressure, Pap smear, mammogram), type of cost-sharing (deductibles/coinsurance, copayments), and type of health plan (HMO, PPO/indemnity plan). RESEARCH DESIGN: Sixteen logit models were estimated to assess variation in receiving recommended preventive care as a function of cost-sharing within plan type. SUBJECTS: A sample of 10,872 employees, aged 18 to 64 years, of seven large companies served by 52 health plans with diverse cost-sharing arrangements who responded to the Pacific Business Group on Health, Health Plan Value Check Survey (response rate, 50.3%). MEASURES: Receipt of recommended preventive care was based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Guidelines. The effect of cost-sharing was measured as the percentage change in the probability of receiving recommended preventive care in the cost-sharing group compared to the non cost-sharing group. RESULTS: The negative effect of patient cost-sharing was greatest on preventive counseling in PPO/indemnity plans (-15%) and on mammograms in all health plan types (-9%-10%). The effect on Pap smears was negative (-8%-10%) for deductibles/coinsurance in PPO/indemnity plans and copayments in HMOs. The effect of cost-sharing on blood pressure was mixed. Deductibles/coinsurance had a greater negative effect than copayments. CONCLUSIONS: Eliminating patient cost-sharing for selected preventive services may be a relatively easy and effective means of increasing utilization of recommended clinical preventive care.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effect of different forms of patient cost-sharing on the utilization of clinical preventive services or if the effect varies by type of health plan. OBJECTIVES: To assess empirically the relationships between the utilization of recommended preventive services and different forms of patient cost-sharing and how the effect is mediated by type of preventive service (counseling, blood pressure, Pap smear, mammogram), type of cost-sharing (deductibles/coinsurance, copayments), and type of health plan (HMO, PPO/indemnity plan). RESEARCH DESIGN: Sixteen logit models were estimated to assess variation in receiving recommended preventive care as a function of cost-sharing within plan type. SUBJECTS: A sample of 10,872 employees, aged 18 to 64 years, of seven large companies served by 52 health plans with diverse cost-sharing arrangements who responded to the Pacific Business Group on Health, Health Plan Value Check Survey (response rate, 50.3%). MEASURES: Receipt of recommended preventive care was based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Guidelines. The effect of cost-sharing was measured as the percentage change in the probability of receiving recommended preventive care in the cost-sharing group compared to the non cost-sharing group. RESULTS: The negative effect of patient cost-sharing was greatest on preventive counseling in PPO/indemnity plans (-15%) and on mammograms in all health plan types (-9%-10%). The effect on Pap smears was negative (-8%-10%) for deductibles/coinsurance in PPO/indemnity plans and copayments in HMOs. The effect of cost-sharing on blood pressure was mixed. Deductibles/coinsurance had a greater negative effect than copayments. CONCLUSIONS: Eliminating patient cost-sharing for selected preventive services may be a relatively easy and effective means of increasing utilization of recommended clinical preventive care.
Authors: Carol P Somkin; Stephen J McPhee; Tung Nguyen; Susan Stewart; Sarah J Shema; Bang Nguyen; Rena Pasick Journal: Med Care Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Laurence C Baker; Kathryn A Phillips; Jennifer S Haas; Su-Ying Liang; Dean Sonneborn Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Louise M Henderson; Ellen S O'Meara; Jennifer S Haas; Christoph I Lee; Karla Kerlikowske; Brian L Sprague; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Tracy Onega Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2020-05-05 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Susan A Sabatino; Trevor D Thompson; Jacqueline W Miller; Nancy Breen; Mary C White; Erica Breslau; Meredith L Shoemaker Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Spencer D Dorn; David Wei; Joel F Farley; Nilay D Shah; Nicholas J Shaheen; Robert S Sandler; Michael D Kappelman Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 11.382