Shifting Costs onto Consumers May Create Long-term Problems
There are so many studies and surveys in healthcare that sometimes an important one gets lost in the mix—especially with the myriad health reform studies comparing the House and Senate plans.
That was the case with a study released last Friday that has ramifications not only to CMS and policymakers, but health insurers—whether they offer Medicare Advantage or not.
Researchers from Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Program and David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA compared drug costs and adherence among Medicare beneficiaries with a standard Part D coverage gap versus those with supplemental gap coverage in 2006. Using pharmacy data from the Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plans, researchers looked to see how the so-called Medicare doughnut hole is affecting seniors and their care.
The doughnut hole requires seniors to pick up the tab for prescription drugs once their annual drug costs reach $2,250 and until the total reaches $3,600. The belief behind the doughnut hole is that transferring costs onto the beneficiary will reduce over prescribing and force beneficiaries to make wiser healthcare decisions.
What researchers found was that Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes in the doughnut hole experienced lower drug costs (3-4% lower), but the bad news is that they had much higher out-of-pocket spending and worse medication adherence to three chronic drug classes.
These results should not surprise anyone—and shows the dangers of shifting costs onto consumers. If people need to choose between food and their blood pressure medication, everyone will side with eating.
How the Medicare Study Links to Group Health Insurance
Some insurers may see that the study involved Medicare beneficiaries and dismiss it as not pertaining to their group health insurance. Although this study targeted the Medicare Advantage population, all health insurers and employers should take note. Shifting healthcare costs to the individual will save money in the short-term, but could have long-range cost implications if the members are not following medication regimens.
There is no better example of how this cost-shifting can affect member health than high-deductible health plans. If these plans are coupled with member education and tools, they have the potential to lower costs and create more informed healthcare consumers. The problem is that high-deductible plans are often lacking in the area of member engagement and tools.
- 10 Major Changes to Health Reform in House's Reconciliation Bill
- Ten Ways to Increase Nurses' Time at the Bedside
- Six Reasons Proposed Hospital Advertising Ban Will Never Pass
- Computer-Controlled Pancreas Could Close the Diabetes Loop
- Medical Breakthroughs That Will Change Healthcare
- Match Day a Reminder of Primary Care's Struggles
- Hospitals Make Employee Flu Vaccinations a Patient Safety Issue
- Physicians Generate $1.5M Annually for Their Hospitals, Says Survey
- Can 'Deadly Deliveries' Be a Wake-Up Call to Physicians, Hospitals?
- Hospital Monitors Infectious Diseases Using Real-Time Surveillance


joanne denise (1/21/2010 at 4:42 PM)
has anyone even considered the fact that so many Seniors have a limited income and will not ask family members to help, and what about those who are alone, there are millions of them ?
Rent,heating or a summer fan, food and then costly medication.. this is not a cellphone and fast car generation and there is no broker to help educate them to options availabe ( like coupons on the internet)
HD Carroll (1/14/2010 at 9:40 AM)
Just an incite to the original motivation for the "doughnut hole" - it had nothing to do with what you claim, it was purely and simply the only actuarial manipulation of the cost of the benefit being proposed that would provide a benefit that looked like it was helping as many people as possible (the front end), could claim it helped at the truly catastrophic end (the back end), while cutting down as much cost as possible, since the real need of people was the hole in the middle. By eliminating the corridor in the middle where the bulk of true insurance was needed, it kept the range of costs down to the minimal level required to politically sell the deal. As it turned out, the actuaries still projected higher costs than the administration could sell, so the actuaries were told to keep quiet until after Part D passed, when the truth finally came out. The "hole" made the scam possible.
Phil Ericksen (1/13/2010 at 2:04 PM)
Interesting concept of value:
"We view VBID as soft paternalism in the fact that we use the copayment and physician reimbursements to provide that financial and sometimes non-financial nudge to understand that it costs you less as the patient and makes you more money as the doctor" when there is value-based medicine, says Fendrick.
Hmm. The patient does not value the physician's advice enough to buy the treatment, therefore someone else should pay to assure that the doctor gets paid no matter how little the patient values his advice and treatment.
What value does the payer get for his money?