Insulin Out-of-Pocket Spending Caps and Employer-Sponsored Insurance: Changes in Out-of-Pocket and Total Costs for Insulin and Healthcare.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Khrysta A Baig, Carrie E Fry, Melinda B Buntin, Alvin C Powers, Stacie B Dusetzina
{"title":"Insulin Out-of-Pocket Spending Caps and Employer-Sponsored Insurance: Changes in Out-of-Pocket and Total Costs for Insulin and Healthcare.","authors":"Khrysta A Baig, Carrie E Fry, Melinda B Buntin, Alvin C Powers, Stacie B Dusetzina","doi":"10.1111/1475-6773.14656","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To estimate the impact of state-level insulin out-of-pocket caps on changes in out-of-pocket and total costs of insulin and healthcare for insulin users with employer-sponsored insurance.</p><p><strong>Study setting and design: </strong>We evaluated changes in costs using a quasi-experimental (triple difference-in-differences; \"DDD\") design to analyze multi-carrier claims from insulin users enrolled in fully insured (state-regulated) and self-funded (generally exempt) employer-sponsored plans in 10 states with caps by January 2021 compared to no-cap states pre-/post-cap implementation. Primary outcomes were changes in insulin out-of-pocket spending, total (plan + member) paid for insulin, and total healthcare costs. Secondary outcomes were intermediary (e.g., pharmaceutical) changes in out-of-pocket and total costs.</p><p><strong>Data sources and analytic sample: </strong>In the policy year (no-cap states: 2021), we identified 218,441 insulin-users in the Health Care Cost Institute 2.0 Dataset (cap states: 27,834 in fully insured and 22,131 in self-funded plans; no-cap states: 97,239 in fully insured and 71,237 in self-funded plans) and 215,635 in the year prior.</p><p><strong>Principal findings: </strong>We found evidence of modest decreases in 30-day standardized (DDD: -$5 [95% CI: -$6 to -$4]; p < 0.001) and annual (DDD: -$67 [95% CI: -$82 to -$51]; p < 0.001) insulin out-of-pocket spending. Savings increased by spending quantile (e.g., 95th-percentile change:-$347 [95% CI: -$460 to $233]). Difference-in-differences (DiD) comparing fully insured to self-funded plans within cap-states showed larger changes (e.g., 95th-percentile annual insulin out-of-pocket:-$484 [95% CI: -$651 to -$318]), likely due to policy spillover effects (i.e., fully insured plans decreased out-of-pocket in no-cap states). Change in annual total paid for healthcare was not statistically significant (DDD:-$1082 [95% CI: -$2918 to $755]; p < 0.25). We saw no evidence of caps increasing out-of-pocket or total spending on insulin, prescriptions, or healthcare.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest early caps had modest effects on out-of-pocket spending among fully insured insulin users, with larger savings for those at the top of the spending distribution and no total cost increases. Policy effects may be greater than observed; they likely lag implementation and develop over time.</p>","PeriodicalId":55065,"journal":{"name":"Health Services Research","volume":" ","pages":"e14656"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14656","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the impact of state-level insulin out-of-pocket caps on changes in out-of-pocket and total costs of insulin and healthcare for insulin users with employer-sponsored insurance.

Study setting and design: We evaluated changes in costs using a quasi-experimental (triple difference-in-differences; "DDD") design to analyze multi-carrier claims from insulin users enrolled in fully insured (state-regulated) and self-funded (generally exempt) employer-sponsored plans in 10 states with caps by January 2021 compared to no-cap states pre-/post-cap implementation. Primary outcomes were changes in insulin out-of-pocket spending, total (plan + member) paid for insulin, and total healthcare costs. Secondary outcomes were intermediary (e.g., pharmaceutical) changes in out-of-pocket and total costs.

Data sources and analytic sample: In the policy year (no-cap states: 2021), we identified 218,441 insulin-users in the Health Care Cost Institute 2.0 Dataset (cap states: 27,834 in fully insured and 22,131 in self-funded plans; no-cap states: 97,239 in fully insured and 71,237 in self-funded plans) and 215,635 in the year prior.

Principal findings: We found evidence of modest decreases in 30-day standardized (DDD: -$5 [95% CI: -$6 to -$4]; p < 0.001) and annual (DDD: -$67 [95% CI: -$82 to -$51]; p < 0.001) insulin out-of-pocket spending. Savings increased by spending quantile (e.g., 95th-percentile change:-$347 [95% CI: -$460 to $233]). Difference-in-differences (DiD) comparing fully insured to self-funded plans within cap-states showed larger changes (e.g., 95th-percentile annual insulin out-of-pocket:-$484 [95% CI: -$651 to -$318]), likely due to policy spillover effects (i.e., fully insured plans decreased out-of-pocket in no-cap states). Change in annual total paid for healthcare was not statistically significant (DDD:-$1082 [95% CI: -$2918 to $755]; p < 0.25). We saw no evidence of caps increasing out-of-pocket or total spending on insulin, prescriptions, or healthcare.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest early caps had modest effects on out-of-pocket spending among fully insured insulin users, with larger savings for those at the top of the spending distribution and no total cost increases. Policy effects may be greater than observed; they likely lag implementation and develop over time.

胰岛素自付费用上限和雇主赞助的保险:胰岛素和医疗保健的自付费用和总费用的变化。
目的:评估州级胰岛素自付上限对雇主赞助保险的胰岛素使用者自付胰岛素和医疗保健总成本变化的影响。研究设置和设计:我们使用准实验(三差中差;“DDD”)设计,以分析在2021年1月之前有上限的10个州参加完全保险(国家监管)和自筹资金(通常豁免)雇主赞助计划的胰岛素使用者的多承运人索赔,并与没有上限的州在实施上限之前/之后进行比较。主要结局是胰岛素自付支出、胰岛素支付总额(计划+成员)和总医疗保健费用的变化。次要结局是自付费用和总费用的中间变化(如药品)。数据来源和分析样本:在政策年度(无上限州:2021年),我们在医疗保健成本研究所2.0数据集中确定了218,441名胰岛素使用者(上限州:27,834名完全保险和22131名自筹资金计划;没有上限的州:97,239个有全额保险,71,237个有自筹资金计划),前一年为215,635个。主要发现:我们发现了30天标准化(DDD: - 5美元[95% CI: - 6至- 4美元])适度下降的证据;p结论:我们的研究结果表明,在完全投保的胰岛素使用者中,早期的上限对自付支出有适度的影响,对于那些支出分布最高的人来说,节省的资金更多,而且总成本没有增加。政策效应可能大于观察到的;随着时间的推移,它们可能滞后于实现和开发。
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
Health Services Research
Health Services Research 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
5.90%
发文量
193
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Services Research (HSR) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal that provides researchers and public and private policymakers with the latest research findings, methods, and concepts related to the financing, organization, delivery, evaluation, and outcomes of health services. Rated as one of the top journals in the fields of health policy and services and health care administration, HSR publishes outstanding articles reporting the findings of original investigations that expand knowledge and understanding of the wide-ranging field of health care and that will help to improve the health of individuals and communities.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信