Consumer-directed health plans reduce the long-term use of outpatient physician visits and prescription drugs

Health Affairs

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 1126-1134

  Fronstin, Paul ^a   Sepúlveda, Martín J ^b   Christopher Roebuck, M ^c  

^a Employee Benefit Research Institute   (United States)

^b IBM   (United States)

^c RxEconomics   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; CONSUMER; CONSUMER DIRECTED HEALTH PLAN; DECISION MAKING; EMERGENCY WARD; EMPLOYER; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH EDUCATION; HUMAN; MALE; OUTPATIENT; PHYSICIAN; PRESCRIPTION; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE;

CDHP; CONSUMER-DIRECTED HEALTH PLAN; HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT; PREVENTION; SCREENING;

ADULT; AMBULATORY CARE; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; COST CONTROL; DEDUCTIBLES AND COINSURANCE; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; EMERGENCY SERVICE, HOSPITAL; FEMALE; HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS, EMPLOYEE; HEALTH SERVICES; HUMANS; INSURANCE CLAIM REVIEW; LENGTH OF STAY; MALE; MEDICAL SAVINGS ACCOUNTS; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT ADMISSION; PRESCRIPTION DRUGS; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84879257531     PISSN: 02782715     EISSN: 15445208     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.0493     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Fronstin P. Findings from the 2012 EBRI/MGA Consumer Engagement in Health Care survey. Washington (DC): Employee Benefit Research Institute; 2012. (EBRI Issue Brief No. 379).
2. Towers Watson. Performance in an era of uncertainty: 17th annual Towers Watson/National Business Group Health Employer Survey on Purchasing Value in Health Care [Internet]. New York (NY): Towers Watson; 2012 Mar [cited 2013 May 1]. Available from: http://www .towerswatson.com/en/Insights/ IC-Types/Survey-Research-Results/ 2012/03/Towers-WatsonNBGHEmployer- Survey-on-Value-in- Purchasing-Health-Care
3. Herzlinger R. Let's put consumers in charge of health care. Harvard Bus Rev. 2002;80(7):44-55.
4. For a broader summary of the CDHP literature, see Bundorf MK. Consumer-directed health plans: do they deliver? Princeton (NJ): Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; 2012. (Research Synthesis Report No. 24).
5. Davis K. Consumer-directed health care: will it improve health system performance? Health Serv Res. 2004;39(4):1219-34.
6. Newhouse J, Insurance Experiment Group. Free for all? Lessons fromthe RAND health insurance experiment. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1993.
7. Haviland AM, Sood N, McDevitt RD, Marquis MS. How do consumerdirected health plans affect vulnerable populations? Forum Health Econom Pol. 2011;14(2):1-12.
8. To access the Appendix, click on the Appendix link in the box to the right of the article online.
9. Kaiser Family Foundation, Health Research and Educational Trust. Employer health benefits: 2012 annual survey [Internet]. Menlo Park (CA): KFF; 2012 Sep [cited 2013 May 1]. Available from: http://ehbs .kff.org/pdf/2012/8345.pdf
10. Codes included diagnostic and screening mammography/ radiography of the breast by computer-aided detection with or without further physician review. 11 Codes included diagnostic and screening cervical or vaginal cytopathology- Pap smears.
11. Codes included diagnostic and screening cervical or vaginal cytopathology- Pap smears
12. Codes included colorectal screening through stoma, occult blood test, or sigmoidoscopy.
13. The employer had approximately 40,000 plan members with at least one year of continuous health insurance coverage.
14. Iacus SM, King G, Porro G. Causal inference without balance checking: coarsened exact matching. Polit Anal. 2011;20(1):1-24.
15. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83.
16. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(6):613-9.
17. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi JC, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43(11):1130-9.
18. A total of 4,893 distinct clusters were represented in the CDHP cohort and 5,196 in the comparison group. Cluster size was remarkably comparable across groups.
19. The average deductible for employee- only coverage was $1,923 in 2007, as comparedto the higher deductible option of $2,150 used by the employer in this study. Claxton G,Gabel J, DiJulio B, Pickreign J, Whitmore H, Finder B, Jacobs P, Hawkins S. Health benefits in 2007: premium increases fall to an eightyear low, while offer rates and enrollment remain stable. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26(5):1407-16.
20. Statistically significant differences were evaluated using the nonparametric rank test described in Kruskal WH, Wallis WA. Use of ranks in onecriterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc. 1952;47:583-621.
21. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res. 2011;46(3):399-424.
22. Between 2006 and 2009 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended that women ages 21-29 have an annual cervical cancer screening and that women ages 30 and older be screened every two to three years, once they have had three consecutive negative tests. ACOG changed its recommendation in 2009 such that women ages 21-29 should have an exam every two years and those ages 30 and older should have an exam every three years.With regard to breast cancer screening, prior to 2009 the American Cancer Society recommended that women ages 40 and older have a mammogram every year. However, inlate 2009 the US Preventive Services Task Force issued new guidelines. It now recommends that women ages 40-49 not get routine mammography screening and that women ages 50-74 have a mammography screening every two years. The Task Force does recommend that women who are at high risk for breast cancer because of family history continue routine annual screening.