Vanessa K Dalton1, Ruth C Carlos2, Giselle E Kolenic3, Michelle H Moniz4, Anca Tilea5, Emily K Kobernik5, A Mark Fendrick6. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Program on Women's Healthcare Effectiveness Research, Ann Arbor, MI; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic address: daltonvk@med.umich.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Program on Women's Healthcare Effectiveness Research, Ann Arbor, MI; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Program on Women's Healthcare Effectiveness Research, Ann Arbor, MI; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, Ann Arbor, MI. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Program on Women's Healthcare Effectiveness Research, Ann Arbor, MI. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, Ann Arbor, MI; Center for Value-Based Insurance Design, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We sought to describe the relationship between the elimination of out-of-pocket costs and women's use of preventive care office visits and long-acting reversible contraception after accounting for baseline levels of cost sharing. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this analysis was to describe the relationship between the elimination of out-of-pocket costs and utilization of preventive care visits and long-acting reversible contraception insertion while taking baseline cost sharing levels under consideration. STUDY DESIGN: In 2017, we used administrative health plan data to examine changes in out-of-pocket costs and service utilization among 2,172,065 women enrolled in 15,118 employer-based health plans between 2008 and 2015. We used generalized estimating equations to examine utilization patterns. RESULTS: Women in this sample generally had low costs at baseline ($24 and $29 for preventive care visits and long-acting reversible contraception insertion, respectively). The elimination of baseline out-of-pocket costs were related to changes in the utilization of both services but more consistently for contraceptive device placement. Women whose low/moderate out-of-pocket costs were eliminated were more likely to use a preventive care office visit than women with persistent low/moderate costs (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.05), but women with high out-of-pocket costs had lower utilization rates, even after their costs were eliminated. In contrast, the odds of having a contraceptive device placed was higher among all groups of women when out-of-pocket costs were zero, as compared with women with low/moderate costs. For instance, when compared with women with low/moderate costs, women were less likely to have a contraceptive device inserted (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.97) when they had high costs but more likely after their costs were eliminated (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.20). CONCLUSION: Out-of-pocket costs were low prior to the Affordable Care Act. Eliminating costs was associated with increases in preventive service use among those with high levels of cost, but effect sizes were low, suggesting that cost is only 1 barrier. Failing to recognize that cost sharing was already low could cause us to falsely conclude that the elimination of cost sharing was ineffective.
BACKGROUND: We sought to describe the relationship between the elimination of out-of-pocket costs and women's use of preventive care office visits and long-acting reversible contraception after accounting for baseline levels of cost sharing. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this analysis was to describe the relationship between the elimination of out-of-pocket costs and utilization of preventive care visits and long-acting reversible contraception insertion while taking baseline cost sharing levels under consideration. STUDY DESIGN: In 2017, we used administrative health plan data to examine changes in out-of-pocket costs and service utilization among 2,172,065 women enrolled in 15,118 employer-based health plans between 2008 and 2015. We used generalized estimating equations to examine utilization patterns. RESULTS:Women in this sample generally had low costs at baseline ($24 and $29 for preventive care visits and long-acting reversible contraception insertion, respectively). The elimination of baseline out-of-pocket costs were related to changes in the utilization of both services but more consistently for contraceptive device placement. Women whose low/moderate out-of-pocket costs were eliminated were more likely to use a preventive care office visit than women with persistent low/moderate costs (odds ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.05), but women with high out-of-pocket costs had lower utilization rates, even after their costs were eliminated. In contrast, the odds of having a contraceptive device placed was higher among all groups of women when out-of-pocket costs were zero, as compared with women with low/moderate costs. For instance, when compared with women with low/moderate costs, women were less likely to have a contraceptive device inserted (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.97) when they had high costs but more likely after their costs were eliminated (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.20). CONCLUSION: Out-of-pocket costs were low prior to the Affordable Care Act. Eliminating costs was associated with increases in preventive service use among those with high levels of cost, but effect sizes were low, suggesting that cost is only 1 barrier. Failing to recognize that cost sharing was already low could cause us to falsely conclude that the elimination of cost sharing was ineffective.
Authors: Charlan D Kroelinger; Ekwutosi M Okoroh; Keriann Uesugi; Lisa Romero; Olivia R Sappenfield; Julia F Howland; Shanna Cox Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2021-10-01
Authors: Vanessa K Dalton; Michelle H Moniz; Martha J Bailey; Lindsay K Admon; Giselle E Kolenic; Anca Tilea; A Mark Fendrick Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-11-02