G Solanki1, H H Schauffler, L S Miller. 1. Center for Health and Public Policy Studies, University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health 94720-7360, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test empirically a model for estimating the direct and indirect effects of different forms of cost-sharing on the utilization of recommended clinical preventive services. DATA SOURCES/SETTINGS: Stratified random sample of 10,872 employees, 18-64 years, who had belonged to their plan for at least one year, from seven large companies that were members of the Pacific Business Group on Health (PBGH) in 1994. DATA COLLECTION: The 1994 PBGH Health Plan Value Check Survey. 1994 PBGH data on requirements for employee out-of-pocket patient cost-sharing for 52 different health plans. DESIGN: Five equations were derived to estimate the direct and indirect effects of two forms of cost-sharing (copayments and coinsurance/deductibles) in two forms of managed care (HMOs and PPO/indemnity plans) on four clinical preventive services: mammography screening, cervical cancer screening, blood pressure screening, and preventive counseling. Probit models were used to estimate elasticities for the indirect and direct effects. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Both forms of cost-sharing in both plan types had negative and significant indirect effects on preventive counseling (from -1 percent to -7 percent). The direct effect of cost-sharing was negative for preventive counseling (-5 percent to -9 percent) and Pap smears (from -3 percent to -9 percent) in both HMOs and PPOs, and for mammography only in PPOs (-3 percent to -9 percent). The results of the effects on blood pressure screening are inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Both the direct and indirect effects of cost-sharing negatively affected the receipt of preventive counseling in HMOs and PPOs. As predicted, the direct negative effect of cost-sharing was greater than the indirect effect for Pap smears and mammography. Eliminating cost-sharing for these services may be important to increasing their utilization to recommended levels.
OBJECTIVE: To test empirically a model for estimating the direct and indirect effects of different forms of cost-sharing on the utilization of recommended clinical preventive services. DATA SOURCES/SETTINGS: Stratified random sample of 10,872 employees, 18-64 years, who had belonged to their plan for at least one year, from seven large companies that were members of the Pacific Business Group on Health (PBGH) in 1994. DATA COLLECTION: The 1994 PBGH Health Plan Value Check Survey. 1994 PBGH data on requirements for employee out-of-pocket patient cost-sharing for 52 different health plans. DESIGN: Five equations were derived to estimate the direct and indirect effects of two forms of cost-sharing (copayments and coinsurance/deductibles) in two forms of managed care (HMOs and PPO/indemnity plans) on four clinical preventive services: mammography screening, cervical cancer screening, blood pressure screening, and preventive counseling. Probit models were used to estimate elasticities for the indirect and direct effects. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Both forms of cost-sharing in both plan types had negative and significant indirect effects on preventive counseling (from -1 percent to -7 percent). The direct effect of cost-sharing was negative for preventive counseling (-5 percent to -9 percent) and Pap smears (from -3 percent to -9 percent) in both HMOs and PPOs, and for mammography only in PPOs (-3 percent to -9 percent). The results of the effects on blood pressure screening are inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Both the direct and indirect effects of cost-sharing negatively affected the receipt of preventive counseling in HMOs and PPOs. As predicted, the direct negative effect of cost-sharing was greater than the indirect effect for Pap smears and mammography. Eliminating cost-sharing for these services may be important to increasing their utilization to recommended levels.
Authors: John Hsu; Mary Price; Richard Brand; G Thomas Ray; Bruce Fireman; Joseph P Newhouse; Joseph V Selby Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 3.402
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