Xin Haichang
University of Alabama at Birmingham , Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2018 Aug 13;31(7):735-745. doi: 10.1108/IJHCQA-05-2017-0089.
The purpose of this paper is to examine whether high-cost-sharing ambulatory care policies affect non-urgent emergency department (ED) care utilization differently among individuals with and without chronic conditions.
DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This retrospective cohort study used 2010-2011 US Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data. Difference-in-difference methods, multivariate logit model and survey procedures were employed. Time lag effect was used to address endogeneity concerns.
The sample included 4,347 individuals. Difference in non-urgent ED visits log odds between high- and low-cost-sharing policies was not significantly different between chronically ill and non-chronically ill individuals ( β=-0.48, p=0.42). Sensitivity analysis with 15 and 25 percent cost-sharing levels also generated consistent insignificant results ( p=0.33 and p=0.31, respectively). Ambulatory care incidence rates were not significantly different between high- and low-cost-sharing groups among chronically ill people (incidence rate ratio=0.849, p=0.069).
High-cost-sharing ambulatory care policies were not associated with increased non-urgent ED care utilization among chronically ill and healthy people. The chronically ill patients may have retained sizable ambulatory care that was necessary to maintain their health. Health plans or employers may consider low-level cost-sharing policies for ambulatory care among chronically ill enrollees or employees.
ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Findings contribute to insurance benefit design; i.e., whether high-cost-sharing ambulatory care policies should be implemented among chronically ill enrollees to maintain their health and save costs for health plans.
本文旨在研究高成本分担的门诊护理政策对患有和未患有慢性病的个体在非紧急急诊科(ED)护理利用方面的影响是否不同。
设计/方法/途径:这项回顾性队列研究使用了2010 - 2011年美国医疗支出小组调查数据。采用了差异中的差异方法、多元逻辑模型和调查程序。使用时间滞后效应来解决内生性问题。
样本包括4347名个体。慢性病患者和非慢性病患者在高成本分担政策与低成本分担政策之间的非紧急急诊就诊对数优势差异不显著(β = -0.48,p = 0.42)。成本分担水平为15%和25%时的敏感性分析也得出了一致的不显著结果(分别为p = 0.33和p = 0.31)。慢性病患者中,高成本分担组和低成本分担组的门诊护理发病率没有显著差异(发病率比 = 0.849,p = 0.