Survey results show that adults are willing to pay higher insurance premiums for generous coverage of specialty drugs

Health Affairs

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 683-690

  Romley, John A ^a   Sanchez, Yuri ^b   Penrod, John R ^c   Goldman, Dana P ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b PRECISION HEALTH ECONOMICS   (United States)

^c BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB   (United States)

^d Leonard D Schaeffer Center   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER THERAPY; DRUG COST; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS;

COST SHARING; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; FINANCING, PERSONAL; FORMULARIES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; INSURANCE, PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; SPECIALIZATION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84862497412     PISSN: 02782715     EISSN: 15445208     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1301     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Drugs in the commercial plans were deemed to be "specialty drugs" if they were placed on a specialty formulary tier by at least 90 percent of Medicare Part D plans surveyed in 2008. See Hargrave E, Hoadley J, Merrell K. Drugs on specialty tiers in Part D. Washington (DC): Medicare Payment Advisory Commission; 2009.
2. Kantarjian H, O'Brien S, Jabbour E, Garcia-Manero G, Quintas-Cardama A, Shan J, et al. Improved survival in chronic myeloid leukemia since the introduction of imatinib therapy: a single-institution historical experience. Blood. 2012;119(9):1981-7.
3. Randomised double-blind placebocontrolled study of interferon beta-1a in relapsing/remitting multiple sclerosis. PRISMS (Prevention of Relapses and Disability by Interferon beta-1a Subcutaneously in Multiple Sclerosis) Study Group. Lancet. 1998;352(9139):1498-504.
4. These commercial plan data have been used in prior research. See, for example, Solomon MD, Goldman DP, Joyce GF, Escarce JJ. Cost sharing and the initiation of drug therapy for the chronically ill. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(8):740-8.
5. Hargrave E, Hoadley J, Summer L, Cubanski J, Neuman T. Coverage of top brand-name and specialty drugs [Internet]. Menlo Park (CA): Kaiser Family Foundation; 2010 Sep [cited 2012 Mar 19]. (Medicare Part D 2010 Data Spotlight). Available from: http://www.kff.org/medicare/ upload/8095.pdf
6. Goldman DP, Jena AB, Lakdawalla DN, Malin JL, Malkin JD, Sun E. The value of specialty oncology drugs. Health Serv Res. 2010;45(1):115-32.
7. Zeckhauser R. Medical insurance: a case study of the tradeoff between risk spreading and appropriate incentives. J Econ Theory. 1970;2(1): 10-26.
8. Pauly MV. The economics of moral hazard: comment. Am Econ Rev. 1968;58(3):531-7.
9. Manning WG, Marquis MS. Health insurance: the tradeoff between risk pooling and moral hazard. J Health Econ. 1996;15(5):609-39.
10. Varian H. Intermediate microeconomics: a modern approach. 8th ed. New York (NY): W.W. Norton; 2009.
11. Most immediately, insurance lowers the out-of-pocket cost of medical care for current illness. The focus in this study is on the value of insurance to people who are currently healthy.
12. Mitchell R, Carson R. A contingent valuation estimate of national freshwater benefits: technical report to the US Environmental Protection Agency. Washington (DC): Resources for the Future; 1984.
13. Goldman DP, Joyce GF, Lawless G, Crown WH, Willey V. Benefit design and specialty drug use. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25(5):1319-31.
14. To access the Appendix, click on the Appendix link in the box to the right of the article online
15. Klose T. The contingent valuation method in health care. Health Policy. 1999;47(2):97-123.
16. Ryan M, Scott DA, Donaldson C. Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods. J Health Econ. 2004;23(2):237-58.
17. RAND Corporation. The American Life Panel: welcome to the American Life Panel [Internet]. Santa Monica (CA): RAND Corporation; [cited 2012 Mar 7]. Available from: https://mmicdata.rand.org/alp
18. For information about studies using the American Life Panel, including those in Notes 19-25, see RAND Corporation. The American Life Panel: papers [Internet]. Santa Monica (CA): RAND Corporation; [cited 2012 Mar 7]. Available from: https://mmicdata.rand.org/alp/index.php?page=papers
19. Manski CF, Molinari F. Rounding probabilistic expectations in surveys. J Bus Econ Statist. 2010; 28(2):219-31.
20. Hauser RM, Weir D. Recent developments in longitudinal studies of aging in the United States. Demography. 2010;47(Suppl):S111-30.
21. Delavande A, Manski CF. Candidate preferences and expectations of election outcomes. PNAS. 2012; 109(10):3711-5.
22. Kapteyn A, Smith JP, van Soest A. Vignettes and self-reports of work disability in the United States and the Netherlands. Am Econ Rev. 2007;97(1):461-73.
23. Gidengil CA, Parker AM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Trends in risk perceptions and vaccination intentions: a longitudinal study of the first year of the H1N1 pandemic. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(4):672-9.
24. Ringel JS, Eibner C, Girosi F, Cordova A, McGlynn EA. Modeling health care policy alternatives. Health Serv Res. 2010;45(5p2): 1541-58.
25. Delavande A, Rohwedder S. Individuals' uncertainty about future social security benefits and portfolio choice. J Appl Econometrics. 2011; 26(3):498-519.
26. Klassen D, Hornstra BK, Anderson PB. Influence of social desirability on symptom and mood reporting in a community survey. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1975;43(4):448-52.
27. Toepoel V, Das M, Van Soest A. Effects of design in web surveys. Public Opin Q. 2008;72(5):985-1007.
28. Toepoel V, Das JWM, van Soest AHO. Relating question type to panel conditioning: comparing trained and fresh respondents. Surv Res Methods. 2009;3(2):73-80.
29. Göritz AS. Incentives in web studies: methodological issues and a review. Int J Internet Sci. 2006;1(1):58-70.
30. Mack S, Huggins V, Keathley D, Sundukchi M. Do monetary incentives improve response rates in the survey of income and program participation? Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods. Alexandria (VA): American Statistical Association; 1998.
31. Millar MM, Dillman DA. Improving response to web and mixed-mode surveys. Public Opin Q. 2011;75(2): 249-69.
32. Singer E, Kulka RA. Paying respondents for survey participation. In: Ploeg MV, Moffitt RA, Citro CF, editors. Studies of welfare populations: data collection and research issues. Washington (DC): National Academies Press; 2002.
33. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Labor force statistics from the Current Population Survey [Internet]. Washington (DC): BLS; [cited 2012 Mar 7]. Available from: http://www.bls.gov/cps
34. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey [Internet]. Rockville (MD): AHRQ; [cited 2012 Mar 7]. Available from: http://meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb
35. Miller RG Jr. Simultaneous statistical inference. New York (NY): Springer-Verlag; 1991.
36. Abaluck J, Gruber J. Choice inconsistencies among the elderly: evidence from plan choice in the Medicare Part D Program. Am Econ Rev. 2011;101(4):1180-210.
37. Wolinsky A. Prices as signals of product quality. Rev Econ Stud. 1983;50(4):647-58.
38. Finkelstein A, Taubman S, Wright B, Bernstein M, Gruber J, Newhouse JP, et al. The Oregon health insurance experiment: evidence from the first year. Cambridge (MA): National Bureau of Economic Research; 2011 Jul [cited 2012 Mar 7]. (NBER Working Paper No. 17190). Available from: http://www.nber.org/papers/w17190
39. McClellan M, Skinner J. The incidence of Medicare. J Public Econ. 2006;90(1-2):257-76.
40. Barsky RB, Juster FT, Kimball MS, Shapiro MD. Preference parameters and behavioral heterogeneity: an experimental approach in the health and retirement study. Quart J Econ. 1997;112(2):537-79.