Paying to pee: A national survey of urinary catheter users' costs and coverage.

IF 0.8 Q4 PEDIATRICS
Maryellen S Kelly, Hannah Damico, Dawne Widener-Burrows, Judy Thibadeau, Kimberly A Beer, Alexandra Bennewith, Jane M Wierbicky, Sara Struwe
{"title":"Paying to pee: A national survey of urinary catheter users' costs and coverage.","authors":"Maryellen S Kelly, Hannah Damico, Dawne Widener-Burrows, Judy Thibadeau, Kimberly A Beer, Alexandra Bennewith, Jane M Wierbicky, Sara Struwe","doi":"10.1177/18758894241299901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>PurposeThis study aimed to survey individuals who regularly use urinary catheters to understand health insurance coverage and out-of-pocket costs they experience to advocate for health-policy change.MethodsSurvey content was generated by non-profit organizations and programmed into Qualtrics. It was distributed in Spanish and English via email and social media accounts. The survey was open from 1/19/21-2/15/21 and only included individuals who either used catheters themselves or were the care partner of an individual who used catheters. For non-normally distributed data, log-transformed confidence intervals were used to achieve approximately normal distributions; data was then transformed to be analyzed using an approximate 95% confidence interval (CI), and a Mann-Whitney U test was completed to test the equality of medians between groups. Associations between catheter types and out-of-pocket costs were performed using the Kruskal-Wallace non-parametric test.ResultsOne thousand two hundred and forty seven individuals responded. An equal percentage (43%) of catheter users were covered by public/government or private insurance plans only; 14% had both. Among those with public/government insurance, 8% reported their insurance did not cover any catheter costs versus 17% of those with private insurance. The median yearly out-of-pocket costs for privately insured respondents who paid anything was $1200 compared to $540 for those with public/government insurance.ConclusionOut-of-pocket expenses for catheters vary. Those with public/government insurance pay less out-of-pocket.</p>","PeriodicalId":16692,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine","volume":"17 4","pages":"397-402"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/18758894241299901","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeThis study aimed to survey individuals who regularly use urinary catheters to understand health insurance coverage and out-of-pocket costs they experience to advocate for health-policy change.MethodsSurvey content was generated by non-profit organizations and programmed into Qualtrics. It was distributed in Spanish and English via email and social media accounts. The survey was open from 1/19/21-2/15/21 and only included individuals who either used catheters themselves or were the care partner of an individual who used catheters. For non-normally distributed data, log-transformed confidence intervals were used to achieve approximately normal distributions; data was then transformed to be analyzed using an approximate 95% confidence interval (CI), and a Mann-Whitney U test was completed to test the equality of medians between groups. Associations between catheter types and out-of-pocket costs were performed using the Kruskal-Wallace non-parametric test.ResultsOne thousand two hundred and forty seven individuals responded. An equal percentage (43%) of catheter users were covered by public/government or private insurance plans only; 14% had both. Among those with public/government insurance, 8% reported their insurance did not cover any catheter costs versus 17% of those with private insurance. The median yearly out-of-pocket costs for privately insured respondents who paid anything was $1200 compared to $540 for those with public/government insurance.ConclusionOut-of-pocket expenses for catheters vary. Those with public/government insurance pay less out-of-pocket.

花钱撒尿:一项关于尿管使用者费用和覆盖范围的全国性调查。
目的本研究旨在调查经常使用导尿管的个人,了解他们所经历的健康保险覆盖和自付费用,以倡导卫生政策的改变。方法调查内容由非营利组织生成,并编制为质量指标。它通过电子邮件和社交媒体账户以西班牙语和英语发布。该调查的开放时间为21年1月19日至21年2月15日,仅包括自己使用导尿管的个人或使用导尿管的个人的护理伴侣。对于非正态分布的数据,使用对数变换置信区间来获得近似正态分布;然后将数据转换为使用近似95%置信区间(CI)进行分析,并完成Mann-Whitney U检验以检验组间中位数的平稳性。使用Kruskal-Wallace非参数检验进行导管类型与自付费用之间的关联。结果有一千二百四十七人回应。同样比例(43%)的导管使用者仅由公共/政府或私人保险计划覆盖;14%的人两者都有。在那些有公共/政府保险的人中,8%的人表示他们的保险不包括任何导管费用,而有私人保险的人则为17%。参加私人保险的受访者每年自付费用的中位数为1200美元,而参加公共/政府保险的受访者为540美元。结论导尿管自付费用差异较大。那些有公共/政府保险的人自付较少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
5.30%
发文量
139
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信