Out-of-Pocket Costs Burden in Marketplace Plans for People With Diabetes.

Abstract

Background: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) aims to expand coverage and increase access to health insurance. Despite the increase of insured individuals, there are a number of concerns about whether coverage and care are affordable. Prior studies document a growing concern with rising premiums and cost-sharing, including deductibles, particularly for those with chronic conditions.

Objective: Compare the ACA marketplace plan availability and costs across 17 states for individuals with varying diabetic engagement profiles and their related medical needs.

Design: Descriptive Cost Analysis.

Methods: Using Healthcare.gov individual state marketplace websites, we utilized a descriptive cost analysis to compare plan availability and costs for premiums, deductibles, co-payments, and co-insurance for an individual aged 63 years old, who was either a non-diabetic, high-engagement or low-engagement diabetic in urban and rural areas. Using the second lowest monthly premium silver plan (the benchmark plan), we calculated annual costs for premiums, co-insurance, co-payments, and deductibles for these individual profiles. We assessed statistical differences between health care component costs, within and across urban and rural areas, using t-tests.

Results: The findings highlight within and across states, individuals with diabetes, particularly low-engagement diabetics, spend a significantly higher percent of their income on additional health care costs, above their premium, than non-diabetic individuals. In some states, low-engagement diabetic patients spend upwards of 3 times more than high-engagement diabetic patients, highlighting an additional cost burden. For low-engagement diabetics, deductibles are driving health care spending with an average of 59% of health care spending coming from deductible payments. Results do not show statistically different costs across urban and rural diabetic patients.

Conclusion: Despite the ACA's success, results highlight variation in plan availability across states and disproportionate cost burden placed on moderate income individuals, especially related to deductible, and co-payments for those with chronic diseases.