Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, 401 Park St, Ste 401, Boston, MA 02215. Email:
Am J Manag Care. 2020 Jun;26(6):248-255. doi: 10.37765/ajmc.2020.43487.
To determine the impact of high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) on health care use among individuals with bipolar disorder.
Interrupted time series with propensity score-matched control group design, using a national health insurer's claims data set with medical, pharmacy, and enrollment data.
The intervention group was composed of 2862 members with bipolar disorder who were enrolled for 1 year in a low-deductible (≤$500) plan and then 1 year in an HDHP (≥$1000) after an employer-mandated switch. HDHP members were propensity score matched 1:3 to contemporaneous controls in low-deductible plans. The main outcomes included out-of-pocket spending per health care service, mental health-related outpatient visits (subclassified as visits to nonpsychiatrist mental health providers and to psychiatrists), emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations.
Mean pre- to post-index date out-of-pocket spending per visit on all mental health office visits, nonpsychiatrist mental health provider visits, and psychiatrist visits increased by 21.9% (95% CI, 15.1%-28.6%), 33.8% (95% CI, 2.0%-65.5%), and 17.8% (95% CI, 12.2%-23.4%), respectively, among HDHP vs control members. The HDHP group experienced a -4.6% (95% CI, -11.7% to 2.5%) pre- to post change in mental health outpatient visits relative to controls, a -10.9% (95% CI, -20.6% to -1.3%) reduction in nonpsychiatrist mental health provider visits, and unchanged psychiatrist visits. ED visits and hospitalizations were also unchanged.
After a mandated switch to HDHPs, members with bipolar disorder experienced an 11% decline in visits to nonpsychiatrist mental health providers but unchanged psychiatrist visits, ED visits, and hospitalizations. HDHPs do not appear to have a "blunt instrument" effect on health care use in bipolar disorder; rather, patients might make trade-offs to preserve important care.
确定高免赔额健康计划(HDHPs)对双相情感障碍患者医疗保健使用的影响。
使用全国健康保险公司的索赔数据集,采用倾向评分匹配对照组设计的中断时间序列研究,该数据集包含医疗、药房和入组数据。
干预组由 2862 名患有双相情感障碍的成员组成,他们在低免赔额(≤500 美元)计划中入组一年,然后在雇主强制转换后,又在高免赔额(≥1000 美元)计划中入组一年。高免赔额计划成员与同期低免赔额计划中的对照组进行倾向评分匹配,比例为 1:3。主要结局包括每次医疗服务的自付费用、心理健康相关的门诊就诊(细分为非精神科心理健康提供者就诊和精神科医生就诊)、急诊就诊和住院。
所有心理健康门诊就诊、非精神科心理健康提供者就诊和精神科医生就诊的就诊前至就诊后指数日期的自付费用平均每月增加 21.9%(95%CI,15.1%-28.6%)、33.8%(95%CI,2.0%-65.5%)和 17.8%(95%CI,12.2%-23.4%),在高免赔额计划组中与对照组相比。与对照组相比,高免赔额计划组的心理健康门诊就诊量的就诊前至就诊后变化减少了 4.6%(95%CI,-11.7%至 2.5%),非精神科心理健康提供者就诊量减少了 10.9%(95%CI,-20.6%至-1.3%),精神科医生就诊量无变化。急诊就诊和住院也无变化。
在强制转换为高免赔额计划后,患有双相情感障碍的患者接受非精神科心理健康提供者的就诊次数减少了 11%,但精神科医生的就诊次数、急诊就诊和住院治疗没有变化。高免赔额计划似乎对双相情感障碍的医疗保健使用没有“钝器工具”效应;相反,患者可能会做出权衡,以保留重要的护理。