Health Maintenance Organization Plans Research Articles

Health insurance plans offered at NCI-designated cancer centers.

9052 Background: The health insurance landscape in the US represents an expensive and complex challenge to patients and physicians alike. Little is known about health insurance plans (HIPs) offered to physicians, particularly at NCI-designated cancer centers, which represent centers seeking to meet the highest standards. Methods: We collected data on the HIPs offered to physicians at NCI-designated cancer centers by reviewing institution websites from 11/2023 - 01/2024. We abstracted data on the insurance premium, deductible, out-of-pocket (OOP) maximum, and coinsurance for hospitalizations, limited to three HIPs per institution. We derived estimates using the lowest charge. We calculated inpatient stay costs based on standard hospital stay costs ($2,883 per day over an average of 4.5 days). We compared HIPs between public and private cancer centers. We used US Census Bureau population density data and regression models to explore associations among population density and OOP costs. Results: Among 65 NCI-designated cancer centers reviewed, 61 (93.8%) had readily available information about HIPs provided. Most institutions provided HIPs for all hospital employees, while 2 institutions only covered physicians. On average, each cancer center offered 3.67 HIPs, involving 1.67 insurers (54.1% offered a single insurer). Among 153 HIPs overall, 51.6% were preferred provider organization (PPOs) and one-third (33.3%) were health maintenance organization (HMOs). Only 22.9% of HIPs were high-deductible health plans (HDHP). The majority of cancer centers offered PPO plans (75.4%), HMO plans (57.4%), HDHP plans (55.7%), and some (24.6%) offered other plans, such as point of service and exclusive provider organization. Average costs for different kinds of HIPs are presented in the Table. A higher percentage of public cancer centers provided HMOs (60.5% vs. 50.0%, p=0.76) and PPOs (84.3% vs. 60.5%, p=0.09) than private centers, yet differences did not reach significance. Centers located in regions with higher state population density were more likely to have higher HMO OOP costs (beta=2.72; p=.006) and lower PPO OOP costs (beta=-2.98; p=.012). Conclusions: We found that most NCI-designated cancer centers had readily available information about HIPs provided to physicians. For these centers, physicians had limited HIP options offered, particularly in private institutions, which offered fewer HMO and PPO plans. We also demonstrated associations among state population density and OOP max in HMO and PPO plans. Our study provides a current synopsis of HIPs and identifies disparities among them, contributing to a foundation for future research. [Table: see text]

Overall survival with palbociclib (PAL) plus an aromatase inhibitor (AI) versus AI alone in older patients (pts) with de novo, HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer: A SEER-Medicare analysis.

1111 Background: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor in combination with endocrine therapy (CDK4/6i) is the current standard of care in first line (1L) treatment for hormone receptor–positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2–) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Comparative effectiveness evidence assessing overall survival (OS) outcomes are limited, particularly in older pts. Our primary objective was to compare OS in Medicare pts treated with 1L PAL + AI versus AI alone in the current SEER dataset. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of HR+/HER2–mBC pts using the SEER-Medicare database. Medicare-enrolled pts aged ≥65 years diagnosed with de novo HR+/HER2– mBC between February 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019 were included. Pts were followed from the start of 1L therapy line until death, Medicare disenrollment, enrollment in a health maintenance organization plan, or the end of available study follow-up (December 31, 2020), whichever came first. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (sIPTW) was the primary method used to balance patient characteristics at baseline, with propensity score matching (PSM) and multivariable CPH regression as sensitivity analyses. Median OS and the hazard ratio (HR) were estimated using the weighted Kaplan-Meier (KM) method and the weighted Cox proportional hazard (CPH) regression model, respectively. Results: Of 779 included pts, 296 received PAL+AI and 483 received AI alone. Median follow-up was 23.9 months for the PAL+AI arm and 18.2 months for the AI alone arm. After sIPTW adjustment, median OS was 37.6 months (95% CI=34.8-42.0) for PAL+AI vs 25.5 months (95% CI=22.0-28.9) for AI alone (HR=0.73, 95% CI=0.59-0.91). Results from the PSM and CPH regression analyses were consistent with the primary analysis. Key patient characteristics are presented (Table). Conclusions: This comparative effectiveness study showed that PAL+AI was associated with significantly prolonged OS vs AI alone in the 1L treatment of older pts with de novo HR+/HER2- mBC treated in US clinical practice using the SEER-Medicare database. Our results add to the body of evidence on the survival benefit of PAL+AI in this population. [Table: see text]

A primer on brand-name prescription drug contracting.

Prescription drug contracting in the United States has evolved over decades from discounts provided to members of early health maintenance organization plans to rebate contracts to more complex value-based purchasing arrangements. This primer describes the history of contracting between pharmaceutical manufacturers and managed care pharmacy organizations and details the various contracting methods used today.

Access to Total Knee Arthroplasty in Medicare Advantage Patients

Background: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most frequently performed procedures in Medicare patients in the United States. Among this population, enrollment in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans is rising but rates of elective TKA are 10-20% lower in MA health maintenance organization (HMO) plans compared to Traditional Medicare (TM). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of Medicare type on patient access to TKA within the large population in Florida. Methods: The AAOS directory was queried for total joint surgeon practices within five Florida counties. Each office was called to assess the response to four insurance scenarios (Traditional Medicare, Blue Medicare Select PPO, Humana Gold Plus HMO, and commercial Cigna). Investigators used a Secret Shopper methodology with a standardized script to request a TKA. Data was gathered on insurance types accepted and number of business days to the next available appointment. Results: Of the 133 orthopaedics clinics called, 63 were accepting new TKA patients. Of those accepting new TKA patients, 91.7% accepted commercial Cigna, 96.8% accepted TM, 70.5% accepted MA HMO Humana Gold Plus, and 50.8% accepted MA PPO Blue Medicare Select. Compared to TM and commercial Cigna, both MA plans had significantly lower appointment success rates (all p<.003). Time to earliest appointment did not significantly vary by insurance type or county (p>.14). Conclusions: Patients in Florida with MA have decreased access to TKA compared to those with TM or commercial insurance, possibly explaining the lower rates of TKA utilization in the MA population.

Dietary Counseling Documentation Among Patients Recently Hospitalized for Cardiovascular Disease

BackgroundDiet intervention forms the cornerstone for cardiovascular disease (CVD) management. ObjectiveThe objective was to measure the frequency of dietary counseling documentation for patients recently hospitalized with CVD. DesignThis was an observational study. Participants and settingPatients were included from the Michigan Value Collaborative Multipayer Claims Registry from October 2015 to February 2020. Main outcome measureThe study measured the frequency of medical claims that document dietary counseling ≤90 days after hospitalization (ie, an episode of care) for CVD events (coronary artery bypass grafting, acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and percutaneous coronary intervention). Dietary counseling documentation was defined as having an encounter-level International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision code for dietary counseling or current procedural terminology code for medical nutrition therapy or cardiac rehabilitation. Statistical analyses performedMultivariable logistic regression was used to measure variation in documentation across gender, age, comorbidities, hospital geography, CVD event, and insurer. ResultsThere were 175,631 episodes of care (congesitve heart failure 47.1%, acute myocardial infarction 28.7%, percutaneous coronary intervention 17.0%, and coronary artery bypass grafting 7.3%) among 146,185 individuals. Most episodes occurred among men (55.8%) and those older than age 65 years (71.9%). Dietary counseling was documented for 22.8% of episodes and was more common as cardiac rehabilitation (18.6%) than other encounter types (5.1%). In multivariable analysis, there was lower odds for dietary counseling documentation among those older than age 65 years (odds ratio [OR] 0.77; P < .001), women (OR 0.83; P < .001), with chronic kidney disease (OR 0.74; P < .001), or diabetes (OR 0.95; P < .001), but greater odds for those with obesity (OR 1.28; P < .001) and nonmetropolitan hospitals (OR 1.31; P < .001). Compared with coronary artery bypass grafting, acute myocardial infarction (OR 0.29; P < .001), confestive heart failure (OR 0.12; P < .001), and percutaneous coronary intervention (OR 0.36; P < .001) episodes had lower odds to have dietary counseling coded. Compared with Traditional Medicare, Medicaid and Medicare Advantage health maintenance organization plans had lower odds, whereas Commercial or Medicare Advantage preferred provider organization and Commercial health maintenance organization plans had higher odds to have dietary counseling documented. Results were mostly similar when evaluated by race. ConclusionsDietary counseling was infrequently documented after hospitalization for CVD episodes in medical claims in a Michigan-based multipayer claims database with large variation by reason for hospitalization and patient factors.

Measuring restrictiveness of Medicare Advantage networks: A claims-based approach.

To develop and validate a measure of provider network restrictiveness in the Medicare Advantage (MA) population. Prescription drug event data and beneficiary information for Part D enrollees from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, along with prescriber identifiers; geographic variables from the Area Health Resources Files. A prediction model was used to predict the unique number of primary care providers that would have been seen by MA beneficiaries absent network restrictions. The model was trained and validated on Traditional Medicare (TM) beneficiaries. A pseudo-Poisson and a random forest model were evaluated. An observed-to-expected (O/E) ratio was calculated as the number of unique providers seen by MA beneficiaries divided by the number expected based the TM prediction model. Multivariable linear models were used to assess the relationship between network restrictiveness and plan and market factors. Prescription drug event data were obtained for a 20% random sample of beneficiaries enrolled in prescription drug coverage from 2011 to 2017. Health Maintenance Organization plans were more restrictive (O/E = 55.5%; 95% CI 55.3%-55.7%) than Health Maintenance Organization-Point of Service plans (67.2%; 95% CI 66.7%-67.8%) or Preferred Provider Organization plans (74.7%; 95% CI 74.3%-75.1%), and rural areas had more restrictive networks (31.6%; 95% CI 29.0%-34.2%) than metropolitan areas (61.5%; 95% CI 61.3%-61.7%). Multivariable results confirmed these findings, and also indicated that increased provider supply was associated with less restrictive networks. We developed a means of estimating provider network restrictiveness in MA from claims data. Our results validate the approach, providing confidence for wider application (e.g., for other markets and specialties) and use for regulation.

Comparison of Out-of-Pocket Spending on Ultra-Expensive Drugs in Medicare Part D vs Commercial Insurance

Little is known about how out-of-pocket burden differs between Medicare and commercial insurance for ultra-expensive drugs. To investigate out-of-pocket spending for ultra-expensive drugs in the Medicare Part D program vs commercial insurance. This was a retrospective, population-based cohort study of individuals using ultra-expensive drugs included in a 20% nationally random sample of prescription drug claims from Medicare Part D and individuals aged 45 to 64 years using ultra-expensive drugs included in a large national convenience sample of outpatient pharmaceutical claims from commercial insurance plans. Claims data from 2013 through 2019 were used, and data were analyzed in February 2023. Claims-weighted mean out-of-pocket spending per beneficiary per drug by insurance type, plan, and age. In 2019, 37 324 and 24 159 individuals using ultra-expensive drugs were identified in the 20% Part D and commercial samples, respectively (mean [SD] age, 66.2 [11.7] years; 54.9% female). A statistically significant higher share of commercial enrollees vs Part D beneficiaries were female (61.0% vs 51.0%; P < .001), and a statistically significantly lower share were using 3 or more branded medications (28.7% vs 42.6%; P < .001). Mean out-of-pocket spending per beneficiary per drug in 2019 was $4478 in Part D (median [IQR], $4169 [$3369-$5947]) compared with $1821 for commercial (median [IQR], $1272 [$703-$1924]); these differences were statistically significant every year. Differences in out-of-pocket spending comparing commercial enrollees aged 60 to 64 years and Part D beneficiaries aged 65 to 69 years exhibited similar magnitudes and trends. By plan, mean out-of-pocket spending per beneficiary per drug in 2019 was $4301 (median [IQR], $4131 [$3000-$6048]) in Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MAPD) plans, $4575 (median [IQR], $4190 [$3305-$5799]) in stand-alone prescription drug plans (PDPs), $1208 (median [IQR], $752 [$317-$1240]) in health maintenance organization plans, $1569 (median [IQR], $838 [$481-$1472]) in preferred provider organization plans, and $4077 (median [IQR], $2882 [$1075-$4226]) in high-deductible health plans. There were no statistically significant differences between MAPD plans and stand-alone PDPs in any study year. Mean out-of-pocket spending was statistically significantly higher in MAPD plans compared with health maintenance organization plans and in stand-alone PDPs compared with preferred provider organization plans in each study year. This cohort study demonstrated that the $2000 out-of-pocket cap included in the Inflation Reduction Act may substantially moderate the potential increase in spending faced by individuals who use ultra-expensive drugs when moving from commercial insurance to Part D coverage.

"It's just not easy to understand": A mixed methods study of health insurance literacy and insurance plan decision-making in cancer survivors.

Understanding cancer survivors' health insurance decision-making is needed to improve insurance choice, potentially resulting in reduced financial hardship. This explanatory mixed methods study assessed health insurance decision-making in cancer survivors. Health Insurance Literacy Measure (HILM) captured HIL. Quantitative eye-tracking data collected from two simulated health insurance plan choice sets gauged dwell time (seconds), or interest, in benefits. Dwell time differences by HIL were estimated using adjusted linear models. Qualitative interviews explored survivors' insurance decision-making choices. Cancer survivors (N = 80; 38% breast cancer) had a median age of 43 at diagnosis (IQR 34-52). When comparing traditional and high-deductible health plans, survivors were most interested in drug costs (median dwell time 58 s, IQR 34-109). When comparing health maintenance organization and preferred provider organization plans, survivors were most interested in test/imaging costs (40s, IQR 14-67). Survivors with low versus high HIL had more interest in deductible (β = 19 s, 95% CI 2-38) and hospitalization costs (β = 14 s, 95% CI 1-27) in adjusted models. Survivors with low versus high HIL more often ranked out-of-pocket (OOP) maximums and coinsurance as the most important and confusing benefits, respectively. Interviews (n = 20) revealed survivors felt alone "to do their own research" about insurance choices. OOP maximums were cited as the deciding factor since it is "how much money is going to be taken out of my pocket." Coinsurance was considered "rather than a benefit, it's a hindrance." Interventions to aid in health insurance understanding and choice are needed to optimize plan choice and potentially reduce cancer-related financial hardship.

Population turnover and leakage in commercial ACOs.

Commercial accountable care organization (ACO) contracts attempt to mitigate spending growth, but past evaluations have been limited to continuously enrolled ACO members in health maintenance organization (HMO) plans, excluding many members. The objective of this study was to examine the magnitude of turnover and leakage within a commercial ACO. A historical cohort study using detailed information from multiple commercial ACO contracts within a large health care system between 2015 and 2019. Individuals insured through 1 of the 3 largest commercial ACO contracts during the study period, 2015-2019, were included. We examined patterns of entry and exit and the characteristics that predicted remaining in the ACO compared with leaving the ACO. We also examined predictors of the amount of care delivered in the ACO compared with outside the ACO. Among the 453,573 commercially insured individuals in the ACO, approximately half left the ACO within the initial 24 months after entry. Approximately one-third of spending was for care occurring outside the ACO. Patients who remained in the ACO differed from those who left earlier, including being older, having a non-HMO plan, having lower predicted spending at entry, and having more medical spending for care performed within the ACO during the initial quarter of membership. Both turnover and leakage hamper the ability of ACOs to manage spending. Modifications that address potentially intrinsic vs avoidable sources of population turnover and increase patient incentives for care within vs outside of ACOs could help address medical spending growth within commercial ACO programs.

Ambulatory Antibiotic Use Patterns in Bolivia: Identifying Targets for Future Antibiotic Stewardship Efforts in Latin America.

We evaluated antibiotic use in a private health insurance network in Bolivia with two different healthcare plans. The Health Maintenance Organization plan had 29% lower antibiotic consumption and fewer broad-spectrum antibiotics prescribed than the Preferred Provider Organization. Furthermore, we identified potential targets for future antibiotic stewardship efforts.

1793. Evaluation of Ambulatory Antibiotic Use in Children and Adult Patients of a Healthcare System in Bolivia Using the AWaRe Classification

Abstract Background The World Health Organization (WHO) has established the AWaRe (Access, Watch and Reserve) classification based on the impact of different antibiotics on antimicrobial resistance. For ambulatory patients, WHO recommends Access antibiotics to represent &amp;gt;60% of all prescriptions, and an Access to Watch (AW) index of ≥1.5. The use of Access and Watch antibiotics has not been evaluated in ambulatory patients in Latin America. The aim of this study was to describe antibiotic use among members of two health plans within a private health insurance in Bolivia. Methods We retrospectively evaluated antibiotic use among 8,405 members of a private healthcare system in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, between Jan-2017 and Dec-2018. Antibiotic use was calculated as defined daily doses (DDD) per 1,000 member-days, and compared between two plans, one a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) (2,419 members) and the other a Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) (5,986 members). In the HMO plan, members have a general practitioner (GP) as the primary point of care, whereas in the PPO plan, members can access specialists directly without a referral from the GP. Differences between groups were calculated using Byar test with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results Antibiotic use in DDD/1,000 member-days for the study period was 8.31 in ambulatory, 10.7 in the Emergency Department, and 0.72 in the hospital. Ambulatory antibiotic use in the HMO plan was lower than the PPO plan (6.95 vs. 8.89 DDD/1,000 member-days; diff. –1.94, 95%CI –2.15 to –1.72) (Table). Of all ambulatory antibiotics, 55% were Access and 45% were Watch (AW index: 1.24). By patient group, 52% of pediatric and 58% of adult prescriptions were Access; diff. –6%; p&amp;lt; 0.001 (AW index: 1.07 and 1.39, respectively). By health plan, 62% of HMO and 53% of PPO antibiotics were Access; diff. 9%; p&amp;lt; 0.001 (AW index: 1.13 and 1.67, respectively). Conclusion Ambulatory antibiotic use in this cohort was high. Overall use of Access antibiotics was lower than the recommended by WHO; however, we found less broad-spectrum antibiotic use in the HMO plan compared to the PPO plan. These findings highlight the urgent need for antibiotic stewardship in the ambulatory setting, and the important role of GPs in appropriate antibiotic prescribing. Disclosures Sara E. Cosgrove, MD, Basilea: Member of Infection Adjudication Committee.

“It’s just not easy to understand”: Health insurance literacy and insurance plan decision-making among cancer survivors.

16 Background: Little is known about how cancer survivors choose health insurance plans and whether low health insurance literacy (HIL) may lead to inadequate coverage or high out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. Methods: This prospective, explanatory mixed methods study assessed health insurance decision-making in a sample of adult cancer survivors &lt; 5 years from diagnosis. Quantitative eye-tracking data were collected from two simulated health insurance plan choice sets to gauge interest in plan benefits (measured by dwell time, or seconds of no eye movement; longer dwell time indicates more interest). Ranking of the most important and confusing plan benefit, HIL (HIL Measure; scored 20-84, higher scores indicate higher HIL), and sociodemographic data were also captured. Differences in benefit-specific dwell time by HIL were estimated using adjusted linear models. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews clarified a subset of survivors’ health insurance plan decision-making. Content analysis identified emergent patterns and themes. Results: With a median HIL score of 60 (IQR 50-70), survivors (N = 80) were 65% female, 59% non-Hispanic White, and a median age of 43 at diagnosis (IQR 34-52). Breast cancer diagnoses were most common (38%) and most survivors had received surgery (75%), radiation (55%), or systemic therapy (75%). In the choice set comparing a traditional and high-deductible health plan, survivors were most interested in prescription drug costs (median dwell time 58s, IQR 34-109), but no differences in interest were found comparing survivors with high and low HIL in adjusted models. In the choice set comparing a health maintenance organization and preferred provider organization plan, survivors were most interested in test and imaging costs (40s, IQR 14-67), with survivors with low vs. high HIL having more interest in deductible (β = 19s, 95% CI 2-38) and hospitalization costs (β = 14s, 95% CI 1-27) in adjusted models. Survivors with low vs. high HIL more often ranked low OOP maximums as the most important benefit (53% vs. 38%) and coinsurance as most confusing (68% vs. 53%). Interviews (n = 20) revealed survivors felt alone “ to do their own research” about insurance choices. OOP maximums were cited as the deciding factor since it’s “how much money is going to be taken out of my pocket.” Coinsurance was referred to “rather than a benefit, it's a hindrance.” Opinions about specialist gatekeeping were mixed; some survivors valued the accompanying lower OOP costs, while others worried about care delays. Survivors also reported issues with coverage and cost transparency post-insurance decision. Conclusions: Benefit considerations in health insurance decisions are varied and confusing for cancer survivors with both high and low HIL. Interventions to aid in health insurance understanding and choice are needed to optimize plan choice and prevent cancer-related financial hardship.

Predictors of Post-Stroke Depression: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Despite reports of a high incidence and various predictors of post-stroke depression (PSD), the underdiagnosis and undertreatment rates of PSD are still high. This study aimed to examine the incidence of depression in stroke patients and identify factors associated with PSD. This was a retrospective cohort study on ischemic stroke patients from the Geisinger Neuroscience Ischemic Stroke (GNSIS) registry. The following statistical analyses were performed to predict PSD in the studied population: a Kaplan–Meier estimator and a Cox proportional hazards model. A total of 5882 patients were included in the study. The median age at the time of an ischemic stroke was 72 years and 56% were males. A total of 294 patients were diagnosed with PSD within one year of a stroke. The cumulative incidence of depression was found to be 6.4% (95% CI 5.7–7.1%) at one year for the entire cohort. Women were found to have a higher risk of PSD than men (HR for women = 1.47, 95% CI 1.18–1.85, p = 0.001). A history of prior stroke (HR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.18–2.11, p = 0.002) and myocardial infarction (HR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.05–2.06, p = 0.025) were associated with PSD. Medicaid patients had a higher risk for PSD (HR = 2.16, 95% CI 1.5–3.12, p < 0.001) than those with commercial insurance or health maintenance organization plans. Our findings showed that women, patients with a history of prior stroke or myocardial infarction, and with Medicaid insurance were more likely to develop PSD. Through an observational study on the EHR data, we confirmed that chronic stress, including financial and health-related stress, irrespective of age, significantly increased the risk for PSD.

Trends in Hospitalizations for Ambulatory Care–Sensitive Conditions During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The association of the COVID-19 pandemic with the quality of ambulatory care is unknown. Hospitalizations for ambulatory care-sensitive conditions (ACSCs) are a well-studied measure of the quality of ambulatory care; however, they may also be associated with other patient-level and system-level factors. To describe trends in hospital admissions for ACSCs in the prepandemic period (March 2019 to February 2020) compared with the pandemic period (March 2020 to February 2021). This cross-sectional study of adults enrolled in a commercial health maintenance organization in Michigan included 1 240 409 unique adults (13 011 176 person-months) in the prepandemic period and 1 206 361 unique adults (12 759 675 person-months) in the pandemic period. COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020 to February 2021). Adjusted relative risk (aRR) of ACSC hospitalizations and intensive care unit stays for ACSC hospitalizations and adjusted incidence rate ratio of the length of stay of ACSC hospitalizations in the prepandemic (March 2019 to February 2020) vs pandemic (March 2020 to February 2021) periods, adjusted for patient age, sex, calendar month of admission, and county of residence. The study population included 1 240 409 unique adults (13 011 176 person-months) in the prepandemic period and 1 206 361 unique adults (12 759 675 person-months) in the pandemic period, in which 51.3% of person-months (n = 6 547 231) were for female patients, with a relatively even age distribution between the ages of 24 and 64 years. The relative risk of having any ACSC hospitalization in the pandemic period compared with the prepandemic period was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.69-0.76; P < .001). This decrease in risk was slightly larger in magnitude than the overall reduction in non-ACSC, non-COVID-19 hospitalization rates (aRR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.81-0.83; P < .001). Large reductions were found in the relative risk of respiratory-related ACSC hospitalizations (aRR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.50-0.58; P < .001), with non-statistically significant reductions in diabetes-related ACSCs (aRR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-1.00; P = .05) and a statistically significant reduction in all other ACSC hospitalizations (aRR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.74-0.85; P < .001). Among ACSC hospitalizations, no change was found in the percentage that included an intensive care unit stay (aRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04; P = .64), and no change was found in the length of stay (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98-1.06; P = .33). In this cross-sectional study of adults enrolled in a large commercial health maintenance organization plan, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with reductions in both non-ACSC and ACSC hospitalizations, with particularly large reductions seen in respiratory-related ACSCs. These reductions were likely due to many patient-level and health system-level factors associated with hospitalization rates. Further research into the causes and long-term outcomes associated with these reductions in ACSC admissions is needed to understand how the pandemic has affected the delivery of ambulatory and hospital care in the US.

Site-based payment differentials for ambulatory services among individuals with commercial insurance.

To compare prices paid by commercial insurers for ambulatory services in physician office and hospital outpatient settings. MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database obtained from Truven Health Analytics. We examined ambulatory service claims for a sample of privately insured individuals who were continuously enrolled in a health maintenance organization plan, preferred provider organization plan, high-deductible/consumer-driven health plan, or exclusive provider organization plan in 2018. We categorized services into five categories: Evaluation & Management, Medical Services & Procedures, Pathology/Lab, Radiology, and Surgical. We identified services commonly provided in both outpatient and office settings and computed the price differential between outpatient and office services overall and for each service category, controlling for observable patient characteristics and geography. We examined 89 services (defined by Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code) that were provided in both office and outpatient settings in our sample (102.7 million claims, 8.3 million individuals). Adjusting for patient and geographic characteristics and across all services, total payment for an ambulatory service was, on average, 145% higher in a hospital outpatient department than the same service in a physician office. Out-of-pocket spending was 109% higher. Price differences between outpatient and office services were highest for pathology/laboratory services. Patients receiving services in outpatient departments had higher mean risk scores and received more services on the date of their visit (in addition to the index CPT being studied) than patients receiving the same index CPT in a physician's office. Payments in hospital outpatient departments were significantly higher than payments for the same services in physician offices among commercially insured patients. Policies such as site-neutral payment would lower costs and could reduce incentives for further consolidation in health care markets. Care must be given to adjusting for patient severity across settings.

Utilization of Women's Preventive Health Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The association of the COVID-19 pandemic with women's preventive health care use is unknown. To describe utilization of women's preventive health services. Cross-sectional study of women aged 18 to 74 years enrolled in a commercial health maintenance organization in Michigan. COVID-19 pandemic (2019-2020). Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of receiving breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening, long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) insertions, and pharmacy-obtained contraception, adjusted for month, age, county, zip code characteristics (per-capita income, non-White percentage of population, non-English-proficient percentage of population), and plan designation (primary plan holder vs dependent). The study population included 685 373 women aged 18 to 74 years, enrolled for 13 000 715 person-months, of whom 10 061 275 person-months (77.4%) were among women aged 25 to 64 years and 8 020 215 (61.7%) were the primary plan holder, with mean zip code per capita income of $33 708, 20.2% mean zip code non-White population, and 3.4% mean zip code non-English-speaking population. For services requiring an in-person visit (breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, STI testing, and LARC insertions), utilization declined by 60% to 90% during the spring of 2020, with a nadir in April 2020, after which utilization for all services recovered to close to 2019 levels by July 2020. Claims for pharmacy-obtained hormonal contraceptives in 2020 were consistently 15% to 30% lower than 2019. The AORs of a woman receiving a given preventive service in 2020 compared with 2019 were significantly lower for breast cancer screening (AOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.79-0.80), cervical cancer screening (AOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.80-0.81), STI screening (AOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.82-0.84), LARC insertion (AOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90), and pharmacy-obtained contraception (AOR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.72-0.74) (all P < .001). In this cross-sectional study of women enrolled in a large US commercial health maintenance organization plan, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with large but transient declines in rates of breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, STI screening, and LARC insertions, and moderate persistent declines in pharmacy-obtained hormonal contraceptives. The overall odds of a woman receiving a given preventive service in 2020 was 20% to 30% lower than 2019. Further research into disparities in access to care and the health outcomes of decreased use of these key health services is warranted.

Frequency and Costs of Out-of-Network Bills for Outpatient Laboratory Services Among Privately Insured Patients

Patients may be unaware of which laboratory is processing their clinical tests, limiting their ability to choose an in-network laboratory. Out-of-network laboratory services could increase patients' out-of-pocket costs and their reluctance to obtain necessary tests. To evaluate the frequency and cost of out-of-network bills for outpatient laboratory services compared with other services. This retrospective cohort study of claims data from the Truven MarketScan Commercial Claims database evaluated claims from 3 946 210 individuals (30.5% of the total) in the MarketScan database who were continually enrolled in health maintenance organization plans, preferred provider organization plans, exclusive provider organization plans, or consumer-driven health plans/high-deductible health plans with at least 1 outpatient clinical laboratory service in 2018. Outpatient laboratory services occurred in independent laboratories, physician offices, and outpatient centers. Laboratory bills from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018, were studied. Receipt and cost of outpatient laboratory service. The primary outcome was the proportion of outpatient laboratory services billed as out of network. The secondary outcome was the total potential out-of-pocket cost associated with the out-of-network bill, the sum of observed cost sharing, and the potential balance bill. Of the 12 958 130 in the total sample, 30.5% (3 946 210) had a laboratory test, of whom 5.9% received an out-of-network laboratory test. In comparison, 7.1% of the total sample had an emergency department visit, of whom 4.9% had a service billed as out of network, and 1.6% had an inpatient anesthesiology service, of whom 3.4% had an out-of-network service. Observed out-of-pocket spending was $24.59 higher for an out-of-network laboratory service than an in-network laboratory service. In addition, patients with an out-of-network laboratory service may receive an additional balance bill from the laboratory service; the estimated mean balance bill was $80.63. For the most common laboratory services, the total potential out-of-pocket cost associated with an out-of-network bill ranged from $15.68 for venipuncture to $88.09 for lipid panel but was as high as $303.18 for a drug screening test. In this cohort study, out-of-network laboratory services were 5 times more common than out-of-network emergency department visits and 34 times more common than out-of-network anesthesiology services. It is important for patients that consumer protections against out-of-network bills apply to laboratory services.

Abstract PS7-78: Trends in BRCA testing among patients diagnosed with breast cancer -a retrospective analysis of a United States commercial claims database from the PRIOR-1 study

Abstract Background The use of BRCA testing to guide the course of breast cancer treatment has evolved in the last 5 years; however, little is known about the use of BRCA testing in a real-world setting. This study assessed the trend in prevalence of BRCA testing and sociodemographic and clinical predictors of receiving a BRCA test among newly diagnosed patients with breast cancer. Methods This was a retrospective study conducted using the Optum Clinformatics Datamart database. Patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer, continuously enrolled in a health plan for ≥6 months before and after diagnosis were included in the study. Claims for BRCA testing were identified after diagnosis using HCPCS, ICD-9/10 procedure, and LOINC codes. The prevalence of BRCA testing was calculated for patients diagnosed in each year from 2012-2017. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess predictors of BRCA testing controlling for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Results From a total of 81,774 breast cancer patients included, 13,529 (16.5%) received a BRCA test after diagnosis. The prevalence of BRCA testing increased from 1,721 (11.5%) in 2012 to 2,384 (17.1%) in 2013 and remained stable over time until 2017 [2,191, (18.5%)]. Of patients receiving a BRCA test, 11,688 (86%) were tested within 1 year of diagnosis. The median time to receive a BRCA test from diagnosis was 29 days (mean: 172.7 days). Results from logistic regression indicated that diagnosis at a younger age (e.g., 18-44 years versus ≥75 years, odds ratio [OR] = 25.3), diagnosis in recent years (e.g., 2017 versus 2012, OR =1.94), having a point of service versus health maintenance organization plan type (OR = 1.10), presence of metastasis (OR = 1.62), and family history of cancer (OR = 4.98) significantly (P&amp;lt;0.05) increased odds for receiving a BRCA test. Female gender (OR = 0.28), living in regions other than West (e.g. South, OR = 0.86), having commercial insurance versus Medicare Advantage (OR = 0.96), Charlson comorbidity index score of ≥3 vs 0 (OR= 0.83) were significantly (P&amp;lt;0.05) associated with lower odds of receiving a BRCA test. Conclusions Prevalence of BRCA testing among breast cancer patients increased initially in 2013 and remained stable over time until 2017. Several demographic and clinical factors were associated with the use of BRCA testing among breast cancer patients. Citation Format: Shelby Corman, Hrishikesh Kale, Pooja Shah, Gboyega Adeboyeje. Trends in BRCA testing among patients diagnosed with breast cancer -a retrospective analysis of a United States commercial claims database from the PRIOR-1 study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS7-78.

Do Insurance-mandated Precertification Criteria and Insurance Plan Type Determine the Utilization of Bariatric Surgery Among Individuals With Private Insurance?

Access to bariatric surgery is restricted by insurers in numerous ways, including by precertification criteria such as 3-6 months preoperative supervised medical weight management and documented 2-year weight history. To investigate if there is an association between the aforementioned precertification criteria, insurance plan type, and the likelihood of undergoing bariatric surgery, after controlling for potential sociodemographic confounders. The study was conducted using the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council's data in 5 counties of Pennsylvania in 2016 and records of preoperative insurance requirements maintained by the Temple University Bariatric Surgery Program.Privately insured bariatric surgery patients and individuals who met the eligibility criteria but did not undergo surgery were identified and 1:1 matched by sex, race, age group, and zip code (n=1054). Univariate tests and logistic regression analysis were utilized for data analysis. The insurance requirement for 3-6 months preoperative supervised medical weight management was associated with smaller odds of undergoing surgery [odds ratio (OR)=0.459; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.253-0.832; P=0.010], after controlling for insurance plan type and the requirement for documented weight history.Preferred provider organization (OR=1.422; 95% CI, 1.063-1.902; P=0.018) and fee-for-service (OR=1.447; 95% CI, 1.021-2.050; P=0.038) plans were associated with greater odds of undergoing surgery, compared with health maintenance organization plans, after controlling for the studied precertification requirements. The documented weight history requirement was not a significant predictor of the odds of undergoing surgery (P=0.132). There is a need for consideration of insurance benefits design as a determinant of access to bariatric surgery.

362P - Patterns and predictors of first-line (1L) taxane use in US patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC)

BackgroundTNBC accounts for approximately 15% to 20% of breast cancers. Patients with TNBC tend to have a worse prognosis and are typically diagnosed at a younger age compared with patients with other breast cancer subtypes. Chemotherapy has been the foundation of care for patients with mTNBC, but new targeted treatment (tx) options are now available (olaparib, veliparib, atezolizumab). The IMpassion130 study showed that the combination of atezolizumab + nab-paclitaxel (pac) improved efficacy outcomes in 1L mTNBC. This analysis was conducted to assess the characteristics of patients receiving taxanes in current US clinical practice. MethodsA total of 2250 female patients newly diagnosed with mTNBC and who received 1L tx between 2005 and 2015 were identified in the Truven MarketScan database. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize baseline characteristics. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify independent predictors of treatment choice. Models included all prognostic variables. ResultsThe median age of patients at 1L tx for mTNBC was 58 years. Most patients lived in metropolitan areas (86%) and were covered by commercial health insurance (74%). Taxane-containing regimens accounted for 54% of all 1L tx, with 23% receiving monotherapy and 26% receiving combination. nab-Pac was most commonly given as a single agent (64%), whereas pac and docetaxel were more commonly given in combination with other agents (62% and 67%, respectively). Single-agent vs combination taxane use, as well as the use of nab-pac regimens (vs docetaxel or pac) increased after 2010 compared with prior to 2010. Patients enrolled in a health maintenance organization plan were less likely to receive nab-pac than pac (odds ratio [OR], 0.41 [0.21-0.79]) or docetaxel (OR, 0.25 [0.12-0.51]). Other factors, such as comorbidities and number of metastatic sites, were not clearly associated with any specific taxane monotherapy tx. ConclusionsTaxanes were the most common tx choice for 1L mTNBC. Patient characteristics were similar among patients who received pac and nab-pac monotherapy, suggesting that they are prescribed interchangeably when reimbursed by insurance. Editorial acknowledgementMedical writing assistance for this abstract was provided by Chris Lum, PhD, of Health Interactions, and funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd. Legal entity responsible for the studyF. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd. FundingF. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd. DisclosureJ. O’Shaughnessy: Honoraria (self): AbbVie Inc.; Honoraria (self): Agendia; Honoraria (self): Amgen Biotechnology; Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self): Bristol-Myers Squibb; Honoraria (self): Celgene; Honoraria (self): Eisai; Honoraria (self): Genentech; Honoraria (self): Genomic Health; Honoraria (self): GRAIL; Honoraria (self): Immunomedics; Honoraria (self): Heron Therapeautics; Honoraria (self): Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals; Honoraria (self): Jounce Therapeutics; Honoraria (self): Lilly; Honoraria (self): Merck; Honoraria (self): Myriad; Honoraria (self): Novartis; Honoraria (self): Ondonate Therapeutics; Honoraria (self): Pfizer; Honoraria (self): Puma Biotechnology; Honoraria (self): Seattle Genetics; Honoraria (self): Syndax Pharmaceuticals. L.A. Emens: Officer / Board of Directors: Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC); Honoraria (self): Abbvie; Honoraria (self): Amgen; Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bayer; Honoraria (self): Celgene; Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Genentech/Roche; Honoraria (self): Gritstone; Honoraria (self): Medimmune; Honoraria (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Macrogenics; Non-remunerated activity/ies, No Compensation: eTHeRNA; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Novartis; Honoraria (self): Peregrine; Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Replimune; Honoraria (self): Syndax; Honoraria (self): Vaccinex; Research grant / Funding (institution): Aduro Biotech; Research grant / Funding (institution): Breast Cancer Research Foundation; Research grant / Funding (institution): Corvus; Research grant / Funding (institution): Department of Defense; Research grant / Funding (institution): EMD Serono; Research grant / Funding (institution): HeritX, Inc.; Research grant / Funding (institution): Maxcyte; Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bristol Meyers Squibb; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Licensing / Royalties, IND Licensing/vaccine <25K: Aduro. S. Chui: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Roche/Genentech. K. Russell: Full / Part-time employment: F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd. S. Lin: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Roche/Genentech. C. Flores Avile: Full / Part-time employment: Genesis Research. P. Luhn: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Roche/Genentech. A. Schneeweiss: Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Celgene; Honoraria (self), Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony, Research grant / Funding (institution), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche; Research grant / Funding (institution): AbbVie; Research grant / Funding (institution): Molecular Partner; Honoraria (self), Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Pfizer; Honoraria (self): Novartis; Honoraria (self): MSD; Honoraria (self): Tesaro; Honoraria (self): Lilly.