Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2019
Association Between Patient Cost Sharing and Cardiac Rehabilitation Adherence.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Farah Michel, Abdallah Maya, Szalai Heidi, Berry Robert, Lagu Tara, Lindenauer Peter K, Pack Quinn R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between cost sharing and adherence to cardiac rehabilitation (CR).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We collected detailed cost-sharing information for patients enrolled in CR at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts, including the presence (or absence) and amounts of co-pays and deductibles. We evaluated the association between cost sharing and the total number of CR sessions attended as well as the influence of household income on CR attendance.
RESULTS: In 2015, 603 patients enrolled in CR had complete cost-sharing information. In total, 235 (39%) had some form of cost sharing. Of these, 192 (82%) had co-pays (median co-pay, $20; interquartile range [IQR], $10-$32) and 79 (34%) had an unmet deductible (median, $500; IQR, $250-$1800). The presence of any amount or form of cost sharing was associated with 6 fewer sessions of CR (16; IQR, 4-36 vs 10; IQR, 4-27; P<.001). Patients hospitalized in November or December with deductibles that renewed in January attended 4.5 fewer sessions of CR (8.5; IQR, 3.25-12.50 vs 13; IQR, 5.25-36.00; P=.049). After adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics, every $10 increase in co-pay was associated with 1.5 (95% CI, -2.3 to -0.7) fewer sessions of CR (P<.001). Household income did not moderate these relationships.
CONCLUSION: Cost sharing was associated with lower CR attendance and exhibited a dose-response relationship such that higher cost sharing was associated with lower CR attendance. Given that CR is cost-effective and underutilized, insurance companies and other payers should reevaluate their cost-sharing policies for CR.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We collected detailed cost-sharing information for patients enrolled in CR at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts, including the presence (or absence) and amounts of co-pays and deductibles. We evaluated the association between cost sharing and the total number of CR sessions attended as well as the influence of household income on CR attendance.
RESULTS: In 2015, 603 patients enrolled in CR had complete cost-sharing information. In total, 235 (39%) had some form of cost sharing. Of these, 192 (82%) had co-pays (median co-pay, $20; interquartile range [IQR], $10-$32) and 79 (34%) had an unmet deductible (median, $500; IQR, $250-$1800). The presence of any amount or form of cost sharing was associated with 6 fewer sessions of CR (16; IQR, 4-36 vs 10; IQR, 4-27; P<.001). Patients hospitalized in November or December with deductibles that renewed in January attended 4.5 fewer sessions of CR (8.5; IQR, 3.25-12.50 vs 13; IQR, 5.25-36.00; P=.049). After adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics, every $10 increase in co-pay was associated with 1.5 (95% CI, -2.3 to -0.7) fewer sessions of CR (P<.001). Household income did not moderate these relationships.
CONCLUSION: Cost sharing was associated with lower CR attendance and exhibited a dose-response relationship such that higher cost sharing was associated with lower CR attendance. Given that CR is cost-effective and underutilized, insurance companies and other payers should reevaluate their cost-sharing policies for CR.