High-deductible Health Plans Members Research Articles

Trends in high deductible health plan enrolment and spending among commercially insured members with and without chronic conditions: a Natural Experiment for Translation in Diabetes (NEXT-D2) Study

ObjectivesTo examine trends in high deductible health plan (HDHP) enrolment among members with diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared with healthy members and compare out-of-pocket (OOP) and total spending for...

Association Between Switching to a High-Deductible Health Plan and Major Cardiovascular Outcomes

Most people with commercial health insurance in the US have high-deductible plans, but the association of such plans with major health outcomes is unknown. To describe the association between enrollment in high-deductible health plans and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes. This cohort study examined matched groups before and after an insurance design change. Data were from a large national commercial (and Medicare Advantage) health insurance claims data set that included members enrolled between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2014. The study group included 156 962 individuals with risk factors for cardiovascular disease who were continuously enrolled in low-deductible (≤$500) health plans during a baseline year followed by up to 4 years in high-deductible (≥$1000) plans with typical value-based features after an employer-mandated switch. The matched control group included 1 467 758 individuals with the same risk factors who were contemporaneously enrolled in low-deductible plans. Data were analyzed from December 2017 to March 2020. Employer-mandated transition to a high-deductible health plan. Time to first major adverse cardiovascular event defined as myocardial infarction or stroke. The study group included 156 962 individuals and the control group included 1 467 758 individuals; the mean age of members was 53 years (SD: high-deductible group, 6.7 years; control group, 6.9 years), 47% were female, and approximately 48% lived in low-income neighborhoods. First major adverse cardiovascular events among high-deductible health plan members did not differ relative to controls at follow-up vs baseline (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89-1.13). Findings were similar among subgroups with diabetes (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.75-1.16) and with other cardiovascular risk factors (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.81-1.07). Mandated enrollment in high-deductible health plans with typical value-based features was not associated with increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events.

175-OR: Impact of High-Deductible Health Plan Enrollment on the Timing of Diabetic Retinopathy Care and Vision Loss Diagnosis

High-deductible health plans (HDHP) that require large out-of-pocket payments for retinopathy screening and ophthalmologist visits could delay retinopathy screening, retinopathy diagnosis, and vision loss diagnosis. We studied 2004-2014 data in a large commercial and Medicare Advantage claims database. We included a national sample of 39,798 HDHP members with diabetes enrolled for 1 year in a low deductible (≤$500) plan followed by up to 4 years in a HDHP (≥$1000) after an employer-mandated switch. We matched HDHP patients to 305,852 contemporaneous controls whose employers offered only low-deductible plans. Outcomes included time to first: (a) retinopathy screening, (b) diagnosis of mild-to-moderate and (c) severe non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy, and (d) vision loss diagnosis. We used Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for multiple baseline characteristics to estimate baseline and follow-up hazard ratios. At baseline, adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) between HDHP members and controls were not statistically different. At follow up, HDHP members experienced delays in first retinopathy screening (aHR: 0.89 [085, 0.92]), diagnosis of mild-to-moderate non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (aHR: 0.82 [0.76, 0.89]), diagnosis of severe non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (aHR: 0.90 [0.81, 1.00]), and vision loss diagnosis (aHR: 0.93 [0.88, 0.99]). HDHP members with diabetes experienced delayed retinopathy screening, retinopathy diagnosis, and vision loss diagnosis compared with similar patients in more generous health plans. Reducing financial barriers to care might improve retinopathy outcomes. Disclosure J. Wharam: None. F. Zhang: None. C. Lu: None. T. Stryjewski: Other Relationship; Self; Aldeyra Therapeutics, Pykus Therapeutics. K. Callaway: None. J. Wallace: None. J.P. Newhouse: None. D. Ross-Degnan: None. Funding National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases

Costs after incident breast cancer diagnosis among high-deductible health plan members.

120 Background: High-deductible health plans (HDHP) are associated with breast cancer treatment delays of up to 10 months, but their impact on health outcomes is unknown. We hypothesized that, compared with women in generous plans, HDHP members would present with more advanced disease and thus experience higher total costs of early care. Methods: We studied 2004-2014 claims data from a large US health insurer. We included women aged 25-64 who were in traditional low-deductible (≤$500) health plans for 1 baseline year then experienced either an employer-mandated switch to HDHPs (≥$1000) for up to 4 or years or an employer-mandated continuation in low deductible plans. We defined the HDHP switch date as the index date. We then restricted to women who developed incident breast cancer after the index date. Using baseline characteristics, we closely matched HDHP members with incident breast cancer to contemporaneous women with incident breast cancer who remained in low-deductible plans. We measured total costs of all health care services in the 60 days after incident breast cancer diagnosis as a proxy for the intensity of incident breast cancer care. We used negative binomial regression adjusted for baseline characteristics to compare total 60-day costs among HDHP and control members. We also subset analyses to low-income women. Results: We included 1514 HDHP members and 9283 matched controls. 60-day costs after incident breast cancer diagnosis were $24,151 (95% CI: $22,766, $25,535) among HDHP members and $22,474 ($21,952, $22,996) among controls, an absolute difference of $1677 ($197, $3156) and a relative difference of 7.5% (8.1%, 14.1%). Low-income HDHP members had corresponding absolute and relative differences of $2653 ($368, $4939) and 12.5% (1.5%, 23.5). Conclusions: HDHP members with incident breast cancer had 7.5% higher health care costs in the 60 days after incident breast cancer than women with more generous coverage, a finding driven 12.5% higher costs among low-income HDHP members. Results raise concerns that delays in breast cancer care among HDHP members are associated with more advanced disease and adverse outcomes.

349-OR: Major Cardiovascular Outcomes among At-Risk High-Deductible Health Plan Members

High-deductible health plan (HDHP) effects on major cardiovascular outcomes are unknown. We studied a 2004-2014 national sample of 63,363 HDHP members aged 40-64 years with diabetes, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia, who were continuously enrolled for 1 year in a low-deductible (≤$500) plan followed by 3 years in a HDHP (≥$1000) after an employer-mandated switch. We matched HDHP members to 539,445 contemporaneous controls who had the same cardiovascular risk factors and whose employers offered only low-deductible plans. Using a controlled interrupted-time-series design, we analyzed cumulative rates of myocardial infarction, stroke, and amputation. We modelled weighted cumulative event rates using aggregate-level segmented regression. HDHP members experienced no detectable absolute change in myocardial infarction (-0.9 events per 10,000 members, 95% confidence interval: -2.7, 0.8) at 3 years of follow-up relative to the end of the baseline year compared to controls. Stroke and amputation declined by 3.4 (-4.0, -2.9) and 6.7 (-9.0, -4.4) events per 10,000 members, respectively, among HDHP members versus controls over the same period. At-risk patients who were switched to HDHPs did not experience increases in major cardiovascular outcomes over 3 follow-up years. Future research should follow patients longer and examine outcomes among low-income populations. Disclosure J. Wharam: None. F. Zhang: None. C. Lu: None. A.F. Hernandez: Consultant; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline plc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. J. Wallace: None. D. Ross-Degnan: None. J.P. Newhouse: Board Member; Self; Aetna Inc. Funding National Institutes of Health

Vulnerable And Less Vulnerable Women In High-Deductible Health Plans Experienced Delayed Breast Cancer Care.

The effects of high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) on breast cancer diagnosis and treatment among vulnerable populations are unknown. We examined time to first breast cancer diagnostic testing, diagnosis, and chemotherapy among a group of women whose employers switched their insurance coverage from health plans with low deductibles ($500 or less) to plans with high deductibles ($1,000 or more) between 2004 and 2014. Primary subgroups of interest comprised 54,403 low-income and 76,776 high-income women continuously enrolled in low-deductible plans for a year and then up to four years in HDHPs. Matched controls had contemporaneous low-deductible enrollment. Low-income women in HDHPs experienced relative delays of 1.6 months to first breast imaging, 2.7 months to first biopsy, 6.6 months to incident early-stage breast cancer diagnosis, and 8.7 months to first chemotherapy. High-income HDHP members had shorter delays that did not differ significantly from those of their low-income counterparts. HDHP members living in metropolitan, nonmetropolitan, predominantly white, and predominantly nonwhite areas also experienced delayed breast cancer care. Policies may be needed to reduce out-of-pocket spending obligations for breast cancer care.

Impact of high-deductible insurance on adjuvant hormonal therapy use in breast cancer.

High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) have become the predominant commercial health insurance arrangement in the US. HDHPs require substantial out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for most services but often exempt medications from high cost sharing. We examined effects of HDHPs on OOP costs and utilization of adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT), which are fundamental care for patients with breast cancer. This controlled quasi-experimental study used claims data (2003-2012) from a large national health insurer. We included 986 women with incident early-stage breast cancer, age 25-64 years, insured by employers that mandated a transition from low-deductible (≤ $500/year) to high-deductible (≥ $1000/year) coverage, and 3479 propensity score-matched controls whose employers offered only low-deductible plans. We examined AHT utilization and OOP costs per person-year before and after the HDHP switch. At baseline, the OOP costs for AHT were $40.41 and $36.55 per person-year among the HDHP and control groups. After the HDHP switch, the OOP costs for AHT were $91.76 and $72.98 per person-year among the HDHP and control groups, respectively. AHT OOP costs increased among HDHP members relative to controls but the change was not significant (relative change 13.72% [95% CI - 9.25, 36.70%]). AHT use among HDHP members did not change compared to controls (relative change of 2.73% [95% CI - 14.01, 19.48%]); the change in aromatase inhibitor use was - 11.94% (95% CI - 32.76, 8.88%) and the change in tamoxifen use was 20.65% (95% CI - 8.01, 49.32%). We did not detect significant changes in AHT use after the HDHP switch. Findings might be related to modest increases in overall AHT OOP costs, the availability of low-cost generic tamoxifen, and patient awareness that AHT can prolong life and health. Minimizing OOP cost increases for essential medications might represent a feasible approach for maintaining medication adherence among HDHP members with incident breast cancer.

Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment After High-Deductible Insurance Enrollment.

Purpose High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) require substantial out-of-pocket spending and might delay crucial health services. Breast cancer treatment delays of as little as 2 months are associated with adverse outcomes. Methods We used a controlled prepost design with survival analysis to assess timing of breast cancer care events among 273,499 women age 25 to 64 years without evidence of breast cancer before inclusion. Women were included if continuously enrolled for 1 year in a low-deductible ($0 to $500) plan followed by up to 4 years in a HDHP (at least $1,000 deductible) after an employer-mandated switch. Study inclusion was on a rolling basis, and members were followed between 2003 and 2012. The comparison group comprised 2.4 million contemporaneously matched women whose employers offered only low-deductible plans. Measures were times to first diagnostic breast imaging (diagnostic mammogram, breast ultrasound, or breast magnetic resonance imaging), breast biopsy, incident early-stage breast cancer diagnosis, and breast cancer chemotherapy. Outcomes were analyzed by using Cox models and adjusted for age-group, morbidity score, poverty level, US region, index date, and employer size. Results After the index date, HDHP members experienced delays in receipt of diagnostic imaging (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.94 to 0.96), biopsy (aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89 to 0.95), early-stage breast cancer diagnosis (aHR, 0.83; 0.78 to 0.90), and chemotherapy initiation (aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.86) compared with the control group. Conclusion Women switched to HDHPs experienced delays in diagnostic breast imaging, breast biopsy, early-stage breast cancer diagnosis, and chemotherapy initiation. Additional research should determine whether such delays cause adverse health outcomes, and policymakers should consider selectively reducing out-of-pocket costs for key breast cancer services.

Burden of out-of-pocket spending among high-deductible health plan members with metastatic breast cancer.

1029 Background: 50% of workers have high-deductible health plans (HDHP) that require major outofpocket (OOP) spending for cancerrelated care. The OOP burden among patients with advanced cancer in HDHPs is unknown. Our objective was to estimate OOP spending for women with metastatic breast cancer (mbc) stratified by health plan type. Methods: Our data source was administrative health insurance claims and enrollment data of members insured though a large national health plan. We included 7142 women age 25-64 with mbc who had at least 6 months enrollment before the diagnosis and at least 12 months followup. We used a time series design and plotted OOP spending stratified by HDHP vs low-deductible plan. Primary outcome measures included: (1) 20042012 calendar trends in total annual OOP spending, (2) monthly total OOP spending in the 6 months before and 24 months after women were diagnosed with mbc, and (3) monthly total OOP spending in the last 6 months of life. Plots were adjusted for age, socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and US region of residence, and we then conducted linear regression to assess for statistical significance of trends. Results: In 2004, average annual OOP spending for women with mbc cancer in low-deductible health plans was $1196.2 and increased to $2570 in 2012, a yearly increase of $159.2 (113.2205.2). For women in HDHP average OOP spending in 2004 amounted to $2648 and increased to $3736.4 in 2012, representing an annual increase of $160.4 per year (105.4215.4) Average OOP spending per person month peaked in the month of diagnosis to $1633.8 for women in HDHPs and to $643 among low-deductible plan members. Average OOP spending in the last 6 months of life were $285.7 per person month among low-plan ($1714.2 per 6 months) and $607.3 among HDHP ($3644 per 6 months). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first analysis to estimate OOP spending for women with mbc accounting for enrollment in HDHPs versus low-deductible plans. We found that OOP spending is increasing over time and is high in the last 6 months of life. HDHP members with mbc faced much higher OOP spending than women in traditional plans across all analyses. Findings raise concerns that HDHPs could worsen access to mbc treatments.

Diabetes Outpatient Care and Acute Complications Before and After High-Deductible Insurance Enrollment

High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) have expanded under the Affordable Care Act and are expected to play a major role in the future of US health policy. The effects of modern HDHPs on chronically ill patients and adverse outcomes are unknown. To determine the association of HDHP with high-priority diabetes outpatient care and preventable acute complications. Controlled interrupted-time-series study using a large national health insurer database from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2012. A total of 12 084 HDHP members with diabetes, aged 12 to 64 years, who were enrolled for 1 year in a low-deductible (≤$500) plan followed by 2 years in an HDHP (≥$1000) after an employer-mandated switch were included. Patients transitioning to HDHPs were propensity-score matched with contemporaneous patients whose employers offered only low-deductible coverage. Low-income (n = 4121) and health savings account (HSA)-eligible (n = 1899) patients with diabetes were subgroups of interest. Data analysis was performed from February 23, 2015, to September 11, 2016. Employer-mandated HDHP transition. High-priority outpatient visits, disease monitoring tests, and outpatient and emergency department visits for preventable acute diabetes complications. In the 12 084 HDHP members included after the propensity score match, the mean (SD) age was 50.4 (10.0) years; 5410 of the group (44.8%) were women. The overall, low-income, and HSA-eligible diabetes HDHP groups experienced increases in out-of-pocket medical expenditures of 49.4% (95% CI, 40.3% to 58.4%), 51.7% (95% CI, 38.6% to 64.7%), and 67.8% (95% CI, 47.9% to 87.8%), respectively, compared with controls in the year after transitioning to HDHPs. High-priority primary care visits and disease monitoring tests did not change significantly in the overall HDHP cohort; however, high-priority specialist visits declined by 5.5% (95% CI, -9.6% to -1.5%) in follow-up year 1 and 7.1% (95% CI, -11.5% to -2.7%) in follow-up year 2 vs baseline. Outpatient acute diabetes complication visits were delayed in the overall and low-income HDHP cohorts at follow-up (adjusted hazard ratios, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.88 to 0.99] for the overall cohort and 0.89 [95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98] for the low-income cohort). Annual emergency department acute complication visits among HDHP members increased by 8.0% (95% CI, 4.6% to 11.4%) in the overall group, 21.7% (95% CI, 14.5% to 28.9%) in the low-income group, and 15.5% (95% CI, 10.5% to 20.6%) in the HSA-eligible group. Patients with diabetes experienced minimal changes in outpatient visits and disease monitoring after an HDHP switch, but low-income and HSA-eligible HDHP members experienced major increases in emergency department visits for preventable acute diabetes complications.

Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Nationwide High-deductible Health Plan Before and After the Affordable Care Act.

Little is known about the effect of the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) elimination of out-of-pocket costs for preventive services. This policy likely reduced out-of-pocket colonoscopy costs most for high-deductible health plan (HDHP) members. Determine the ACA's impact on colorectal cancer screening among HDHP members. Pre-post with comparison group, constructed before and after the ACA. We studied 2003-2012 administrative claims data of a large national health insurer. HDHP members had 1 year of low-deductible (≤$500) plan enrollment followed by 1 year of HDHP (≥$1000) enrollment after an employer-mandated switch; HDHP enrollment occurred fully after the ACA for 21,605 members and fully before the ACA for 106,609 members. We propensity score-matched contemporaneous low-deductible (≤$500) control group members to both the before-ACA and after-ACA HDHP groups. We examined the 1-year impact of the HDHP switch separately in the before-ACA and after-ACA study cohorts, then compared these changes to estimate ACA effects. Overall colorectal cancer screening, colonoscopy, and fecal-occult blood testing annual rates. Before the ACA, colorectal cancer screening tests declined by 37/10,000 (-71, -4) among HDHP members versus controls; after the ACA, HDHP members experienced a nonsignificant increase in screening [+52/10,000 (-19,124)]. Corresponding changes in colonoscopy were -55/10,000 (-81, -29) before and +20/10,000 (-38, 78) after the ACA. Thus, the ACA was associated with increased colorectal cancer screening rates [+89/10,000 (11, 168); relative: +9.1% (0.5-17.8)] and screening colonoscopies [+75/10,000 (12-139); relative: +16.4% (2.5-30.3)] among HDHP members. The ACA was associated with improved colorectal cancer screening among HDHP members.

The Association between High-Deductible Health Plan Transition and Contraception and Birth Rates.

To evaluate the association between employer-mandated enrollment into high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) and contraception and birth rates among reproductive-age women. Using data from 2002 to 2008, we examined 1,559 women continuously enrolled in a Massachusetts health plan for 1year before and after an employer-mandated switch from an HMO to a HDHP, compared with 2,793 matched women contemporaneously enrolled in an HMO. We used an individual-level interrupted time series with comparison series design to examine level and trend changes in clinician-provided contraceptives and a differences-in-differences design to assess annual birth rates. Employer, plan, and member characteristics were obtained from enrollment files. Contraception and childbirth information were extracted from pharmacy and medical claims. Monthly contraception rates were 19.0-24.0 percent at baseline. Level and trend changes did not differ between groups (p=.92 and p=.36, respectively). Annual birth rates declined from 57.1/1,000 to 32.7/1,000 among HDHP members and from 61.9/1,000 to 56.2/1,000 among HMO controls, a 40 percent relative reduction in odds of childbirth (odds ratio=0.60; p=.02). Women who switched to HDHPs experienced a lower birth rate, which might reflect strategies to avoid childbirth-related out-of-pocket costs under HDHPs.

Impact of a High-deductible Health Plan on Outpatient Visits and Associated Diagnostic Tests

By shifting a greater share of out-of-pocket medical costs to consumers, high-deductible health plans (HDHP) might discourage use of essential outpatient services. The objective of the study was to examine the impact of an HDHP on outpatient visits and associated laboratory and radiology tests. We used a pre-post with comparison group study design to examine the differential change in outpatient service utilization among 7953 adults who were switched from a traditional Health Maintenance Organization plan to an HDHP compared with 7953 adults remaining in traditional plans. HDHP members had full coverage of preventive laboratory tests and modest copayments for outpatient visits, similar to controls, but faced full cost sharing under the deductible for radiology tests and laboratory tests not classified as preventive. Compared with controls, the HDHP group experienced moderate relative decreases in overall office visits (incidence rate ratios = 0.91, or a 9% relative reduction; 95% confidence interval: 0.88, 0.94) and visits for higher-priority (0.91; 0.85, 0.97) and lower-priority (0.89; 0.81, 0.99) chronic conditions. There were no significant differences in changes in visit rates for acute higher-priority or lower-priority conditions (both 0.93; 0.86, 1.01) or preventive laboratory tests (0.97; 0.93, 1.02). HDHP members showed moderate relative reductions in the use of general laboratory tests (0.91; 0.86, 0.97) but not radiology tests (0.97; 0.91, 1.03). Chronic outpatient visits declined among HDHP members, although preventive laboratory tests and acute visits remained unchanged. HDHP patients with chronic illnesses who have more contact with the health care system might be more likely to reduce utilization because of increased exposure to costs associated with ambulatory visits.

The Impact of High-deductible Health Plans on Men and Women

Prior studies show that men are more likely than women to defer essential care. Enrollment in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) could exacerbate this tendency, but sex-specific responses to HDHPs have not been assessed. We measured the impact of an HDHP separately for men and women. Controlled longitudinal difference-in-differences analysis of low, intermediate, and high severity emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations among 6007 men and 6530 women for 1 year before and up to 2 years after their employers mandated a switch from a traditional health maintenance organization plan to an HDHP, compared with contemporaneous controls (18,433 men and 19,178 women) who remained in an health maintenance organization plan. In the year following transition to an HDHP, men substantially reduced ED visits at all severity levels relative to controls (changes in low, intermediate, and high severity visits of -21.5% [-37.9 to -5.2], -21.6% [-37.4 to -5.7], and -34.4% [-62.1 to -6.7], respectively). Female HDHP members selectively reduced low severity emergency visits (-26.9% [-40.8 to -13.0]) while preserving intermediate and high severity visits. Male HDHP members also experienced a 24.2% [-45.3 to -3.1] relative decline in hospitalizations in year 1, followed by a 30.1% [2.1 to 58.1] relative increase in hospitalizations between years 1 and 2. Initial across-the-board reductions in ED and hospital care followed by increased hospitalizations imply that men may have foregone needed care following an HDHP transition. Clinicians caring for patients with HDHPs should be aware of sex differences in response to benefit design.

Two-year Trends in Cancer Screening Among Low Socioeconomic Status Women in an HMO-based High-deductible Health Plan

Cancer screening is often fully covered under high-deductible health plans (HDHP), but low socioeconomic status (SES) women still might forego testing. To determine the impact of switching to a HDHP on breast and cervical cancer screening among women of low SES. Pre-post with comparison group. Four thousand one hundred and eighty-eight health plan members enrolled for one year before and up to two years after an employer-mandated switch from a traditional HMO to an HMO-based HDHP, compared with 9418 propensity score matched controls who remained in HMOs by employer choice. Both groups had low outpatient copayments. High-deductible members had full coverage of mammography and Pap smears, but $500 to $2000 individual deductibles for most other services. HMO members had full coverage of cancer screening and low copayments for other services without any deductible. We stratified analyses by SES. Transition to a HDHP. Annual breast and cervical cancer screening rates; rates of annual preventive outpatient visits. In follow-up years 1 and 2, low SES HDHP members experienced no statistically detectable changes in rates of breast cancer screening (ratio of change, 1.14, 95 % CI, [0.93,1.40] and 1.05, [0.80,1.37], respectively) or preventive visits (difference-in-differences, +1.9 %, [-11.9 %,+17.7 %] and +10.1 %, [-9.4 %,+33.7 %], respectively) relative to HMO counterparts. Similarly, among low SES HDHP members eligible for cervical cancer screening, no significant changes occurred in either screening rates (1.01, [0.86,1.20] and 1.08, [0.86,1.35]) or preventive visits (+0.2 %, [-11.4 %,+13.3 %] and -1.4 %, [-18.1,+18.6]). Patterns were statistically similar for high SES members. During two follow-up years, transition to an HMO-based HDHP with coverage of primary care visits and cancer screening did not lead to differentially lower rates of breast and cervical cancer screening or preventive visits for low SES women. Generalizability is limited to commercially insured women transitioning to HDHPs with low cost-sharing for cancer screening and primary care visits, a common design.

Two-year Trends in Colorectal Cancer Screening After Switch to a High-deductible Health Plan

Recent health reform laws might accelerate high-deductible health plan (HDHP) growth. The impact of HDHPs on long-term colorectal cancer screening rates and low socioeconomic status (SES) members is unknown. We studied colorectal cancer screening rates among 1306 Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) members for 1 year before and 2 years after an employer-mandated switch to HDHPs, compared with 1306 propensity score-matched controls who remained in HMOs by employer choice. HDHP members had full coverage of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) but colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema were subject to $500 to $2000 annual deductibles. HMO members had full coverage of these tests. We used generalized estimating equations to adjust screening rates for member characteristics. We stratified analyses by SES. Overall colorectal cancer screening rates in the HDHP group relative to the control group trended down from baseline to the first and second follow-up years [ratios of change, 0.88, (95% confidence interval, 0.73 to 1.06) and 0.83, (0.69 to 1.00), respectively]. Low SES HDHP members experienced a statistically significant relative decrease in colonoscopy in both follow-up years [0.65, (0.48 to 0.88) and 0.59, (0.42 to 0.84), respectively] and a trend toward increased FOBT [1.26, (0.92 to 1.72) and 1.30, (0.95 to 1.77), respectively] to maintain stable overall colorectal cancer screening rates [1.01, (0.77 to 1.32) and 0.93, (0.71 to 1.22), respectively]. High SES members experienced less pronounced decrease in colonoscopy [0.89, (0.67 to 1.18) and 0.87, (0.62 to 1.21), respectively] but FOBT rates did not increase [0.83, (0.62 to 1.11 and 0.81), (0.60 to 1.11), respectively]. Switching to a HDHP was associated with a downward trend in overall colorectal cancer screening rates after 2 years. Low SES HDHP members maintained stable rates, but substituted FOBT for colonoscopy and other tests now more widely recommended. Further research should investigate whether such reduced adherence to screening guidelines adversely affects health outcomes.

Cancer Screening before and after Switching to a High-Deductible Health Plan

Health plans with high deductibles could lead patients to avoid preventive care, such as cancer screening. To determine the effect of membership in a high-deductible health plan on cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening. Before-after comparison between groups. A high-deductible health plan and an HMO in Massachusetts. The high-deductible health plan fully covered mammography, Papanicolaou tests, and fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) but not colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or double-contrast barium enema (DCBE). 3169 high-deductible health plan members and 27,022 HMO members (who served as controls). Change in the proportions of patients undergoing breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. Cancer screening in the high-deductible health plan group was unchanged from baseline to follow-up (adjusted ratios of change, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.19] for breast cancer, 1.04 [CI, 0.92 to 1.17] for cervical cancer, and 1.02 [CI, 0.89 to 1.16] for colorectal cancer). High-deductible health plan members had colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and DCBE less often (ratio of change, 0.73 [CI, 0.56 to 0.95]) and FOBT more often (ratio of change, 1.16 [CI, 1.01 to 1.33]) than HMO members. Population screening frequency was probably underestimated because the study could not assess screening before the baseline year. The study may have included people ineligible for screening because of previous colectomy, mastectomy, or hysterectomy. The findings are limited to a population with relatively high socioeconomic status, which is typical of employed, commercially insured populations. Members of a high-deductible health plan did not seem to change their use of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening when tests were fully covered. However, members may have substituted a fully covered screening test (FOBT) for tests subject to the deductible (colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and DCBE).