Robin H Lemaire1, Linda Bailey1, Scott J Leischow1. 1. Robin H. Lemaire is with the Center for Public Administration and Policy, School of Public and International Affairs, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg. Linda Bailey is with the North American Quitline Consortium, Phoenix, AZ. Scott J. Leischow is with the Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We explored whether various key stakeholders considered cost sharing with state telephone-based tobacco cessation quitlines, because including tobacco cessation services as part of the required essential health benefits is a new requirement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). METHODS: We analyzed qualitative data collected from interviews conducted in April and May of 2014 with representatives of state health departments, quitline service providers, health plans, and insurance brokers in 4 US states. RESULTS: State health departments varied in the strategies they considered the role their state quitline would play in meeting the ACA requirements. Health plans and insurance brokers referred to state quitlines because they were perceived as effective and free, but in 3 of the 4 states, the private stakeholder groups did not consider cost sharing. CONCLUSIONS: If state health departments are going to initiate cost-sharing agreements with private insurance providers, then they will need to engage a broad array of stakeholders and will need to overcome the perception that state quitline services are free.
OBJECTIVES: We explored whether various key stakeholders considered cost sharing with state telephone-based tobacco cessation quitlines, because including tobacco cessation services as part of the required essential health benefits is a new requirement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). METHODS: We analyzed qualitative data collected from interviews conducted in April and May of 2014 with representatives of state health departments, quitline service providers, health plans, and insurance brokers in 4 US states. RESULTS: State health departments varied in the strategies they considered the role their state quitline would play in meeting the ACA requirements. Health plans and insurance brokers referred to state quitlines because they were perceived as effective and free, but in 3 of the 4 states, the private stakeholder groups did not consider cost sharing. CONCLUSIONS: If state health departments are going to initiate cost-sharing agreements with private insurance providers, then they will need to engage a broad array of stakeholders and will need to overcome the perception that state quitline services are free.
Authors: Scott J Leischow; Keith Provan; Jonathan Beagles; Joseph Bonito; Erin Ruppel; Gregg Moor; Jessie Saul Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-09-20 Impact factor: 9.308