Which Of The Following Is Not A Cost Saving Service In A Medical Plan
- Skip to page content
The Health Insurance Experiment
A Classic RAND Written report Speaks to the Current Wellness Care Reform Debate
- View related products
Download Gratis Electronic Document
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PDF file | 0.2 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best feel. |
Key findings
- In a large-calibration, multiyear experiment, participants who paid for a share of their health care used fewer health services than a comparison group given free care.
- Price sharing reduced the apply of both highly effective and less effective services in roughly equal proportions. Cost sharing did non significantly affect the quality of care received past participants.
- Cost sharing in general had no adverse effects on participant health, but there were exceptions: free care led to improvements in hypertension, dental health, vision, and selected serious symptoms. These improvements were concentrated amid the sickest and poorest patients.
Figure 1. Participants with Cost Sharing Visited the Doctor Less Ofttimes
SOURCE: Newhouse and the Insurance Experiment Group, 1993, Tables 3.2 and 3.3.
Notation: Utilization numbers include both adults and children.
Effigy 2. . . . and Were Admitted to Hospitals Less Often
SOURCE: Newhouse and the Insurance Experiment Grouping, 1993, Tables iii.2 and three.three.
NOTE: Utilization numbers include both adults and children.
Effigy 3. Participants with Cost Sharing Spent Less on Health Care Services
SOURCE: Newhouse and the Insurance Experiment Group, 1993, Tables 3.2 and 3.three.
NOTES: Spending numbers include both adults and children. Spending numbers have been adapted to 2005 dollars using all-items Consumer Price Alphabetize.
Afterward decades of evolution and experiment, the U.South. health care system has yet to solve a fundamental challenge: delivering quality health care to all Americans at an affordable price. In the coming years, new solutions will exist explored and older ideas revisited. I idea that has returned to prominence is cost sharing, which involves shifting a greater share of health care expense and responsibility onto consumers. Recent public discussion of cost sharing has often cited a landmark RAND study: the Wellness Insurance Experiment (HIE). Although it was completed over two decades ago, in 1982, the HIE remains the merely long-term, experimental study of toll sharing and its issue on service use, quality of care, and wellness. The purpose of this research cursory is to summarize the HIE's primary findings and clarify its relevance for today'due south debate. Our goal is not to conclude that cost sharing is skillful or bad just to illuminate its effects so that policymakers can use the data to brand sound decisions.
Learning from Experiment: Conducting the HIE
In the early 1970s, financing and the bear upon of cost sharing took heart stage in the national health care debate. At the time, the debate focused on free, universal health intendance and whether the benefits would justify the costs. To inform this debate, an interdisciplinary team of RAND researchers designed and carried out the HIE, one of the largest and most comprehensive social scientific discipline experiments ever performed in the United States.
The HIE posed three bones questions:
- How does toll sharing or membership in an HMO affect use of health services compared to gratis intendance?
- How does cost sharing or membership in an HMO affect appropriateness and quality of intendance received?
- What are the consequences for health?
The HIE was a large-scale, randomized experiment conducted betwixt 1971 and 1982. For the study, RAND recruited two,750 families encompassing more than than 7,700 individuals, all of whom were under the age of 65. They were called from 6 sites across the United States to provide a regional and urban/rural residuum. Participants were randomly assigned to one of 5 types of health insurance plans created specifically for the experiment. There were four bones types of fee-for-service plans: One type offered free care; the other 3 types involved varying levels of cost sharing — 25 percentage, fifty percent, or 95 percent coinsurance (the percentage of medical charges that the consumer must pay). The fifth type of health insurance plan was a nonprofit, HMO-mode group cooperative. Those assigned to the HMO received their care free of accuse. For poorer families in plans that involved price sharing, the amount of cost sharing was income-adjusted to one of three levels: 5, 10, or 15 percentage of income. Out-of-pocket spending was capped at these percentages of income or at $one,000 annually (roughly $3,000 annually if adjusted from 1977 to 2005 levels), whichever was lower. The 95 percent coinsurance plan in the study closely resembled the high-deductible catastrophic plans being discussed today.
Families participated in the experiment for three–five years. The upper historic period limit for adults at the fourth dimension of enrollment was 61, and then that no participants would go eligible for Medicare before the experiment ended. To assess participant service use, costs, and quality of care, RAND served equally the families' insurer and candy their claims. To assess participant health, RAND administered surveys at the kickoff and terminate of the experiment and also conducted comprehensive concrete exams. Sixty percent of participants were randomly chosen to receive exams at the starting time of the report, and all received physicals at the end. The random employ of physicals at the kickoff was intended to control for possible wellness effects that might be stimulated by the physical examination alone, independent of further participation in the experiment.
Effects on Use of Health Services
The results showed that toll sharing reduced the use of virtually all health services. Specifically,
- Averaged across all levels of coinsurance, participants (including both adults and children) with cost sharing fabricated 1 to two fewer physician visits annually and had 20 percentage fewer hospitalizations than those with free care. Declines were similar for other types of services besides, including dental visits, prescriptions, and mental health treatment (see Figures 1 and 2).
- Consumers in the HMO-style cooperative had 39 percent fewer hospital admissions than consumers with free care in the fee-for-service arrangement, but they had similar use of outpatient services. Spending reductions under the HMO programme were comparable to the effects of a college rate of coinsurance in the fee-for-service system.
- Participants in cost sharing plans spent less on health care; this savings came from using fewer services rather than finding lower prices. Those with 25 percent coinsur- ance spent 20 percent less than participants with free care, and those with 95 percent coinsurance spent about 30 percent less (see Effigy 3).
- Reduced use of services resulted primarily from participants deciding not to initiate intendance. In one case patients entered the wellness care system, price sharing simply modestly afflicted the intensity or toll of an episode of intendance.
Effects on Ceremoniousness of Intendance and on Quality of Care
The analysis too examined the appropriateness of the services reduced by price sharing and the technical quality of care received by participants. Did price sharing deter participants from seeking appropriate care to a greater or lesser extent than it deterred ineffective intendance? To answer this question, analysts grouped specific weather into 7 categories according to the caste to which outpatient intendance and therapies were known to exist effective in treating each status. The categories ranged from weather condition for which care is highly effective to weather for which care is rarely effective.
The analysis found that price sharing reduced the use of constructive and less-effective intendance across the board (see the table). For hospitalizations and prescription drug use, toll sharing besides reduced more than-effective and less-constructive intendance in roughly equal amounts for all participants. The proportion of inappropriate hospitalizations was the same (23 percent) for toll-sharing and gratuitous-plan participants, equally was the inappropriate use of antibiotics.
| Medical Effectiveness Category | Predicted Percentage of Participants with at To the lowest degree I Episode of Care in a Unmarried Year, by Medical Effectiveness Category and Programme | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adults | Children | |||
| Gratuitous Care | Cost Sharing | Free Care | Cost Sharing | |
| Highly effective | ||||
| Astute | 28 | 19 | 32 | 23 |
| Acute/chronic | 17 | 13 | 19 | 16 |
| Chronic | 13 | 11 | iv | 2 |
| Quite effective | 23 | 18 | 22 | 18 |
| Less effective | 30 | 19 | 13 | 10 |
| Rarely effective | 11 | seven | 5 | 3 |
| Rarely effective but equally constructive with self-care or doc | 39 | 29 | 36 | 24 |
Price Sharing Reduced the Use of Medical Services at all Levels of Effectiveness
Source: Lohr et al., 1986, p. 34.
Note: Percentages refer to participants who had at least one episode of care within the relevant diagnostic categories during a year of the experiment.
In improver to measuring the appropriateness of intendance sought by patients, the experiment measured the quality of intendance delivered. Analysts constructed process measures of the quality of ambulatory and dental intendance received by HIE participants. The process measures dealt with the appropriate utilize of visits and diagnostic tests by providers and the appropriate use of therapeutic interventions afterwards participants sought care.
Ii hit findings emerged: First, cost sharing did non significantly affect the quality of care received by participants. Clinically meaningful differences between the free plan and cost sharing plans appeared only for the process criteria dealing with the demand for an office visit: 59 percent for free-plan participants versus 52 percent for those under cost-sharing. Second, the overall level of quality for process measures was surprisingly low for all participants: criteria for quality were met only 62 percent of the time. These results were discouraging at the fourth dimension. What is more than, recent RAND work establish that wellness care quality may not have improved significantly in the interim. Results of a 2003 nationwide study showed that quality criteria were met only 55 percent of the time.[one] Thus, despite tremendous technical progress that raises the potential value of care received, quality of care equally a proportion of the all-time possible care has not improved in the past twenty years.
Effects on Health
In general, the reduction in services induced by cost sharing had no adverse effect on participants' health. However, in that location were exceptions. The poorest and sickest 6 percentage of the sample at the start of the experiment had better outcomes under the complimentary programme for 4 of the 30 conditions measured. Specifically,
- Free care improved the control of hypertension. The poorest patients in the gratis intendance group who entered the experiment with hypertension saw greater reductions in claret pressure than did their counterparts with cost sharing. The projected consequence was about a ten percent reduction in mortality for those with hypertension.
- Free intendance marginally improved visionfor the poorest patients.
- Free care also increased the likelihood among the poorest patients of receiving needed dental care.
- Serious symptoms [two] were less prevalent for poorer people on the free plan.
- Cost sharing also had some beneficial effects. Participants in cost sharing plans worried less nigh their health and had fewer restricted-activity days (including time spent in seeking medical intendance).
Also, patient satisfaction, some other outcome of interest, was more often than not high and did not vary at different levels of cost sharing amidst the fee-for-service plans. While health outcomes at the HMO were no different than outcomes for those with free care, patient satisfaction was lower among participants initially assigned to the HMO. These participants were less satisfied with intendance overall than either those who had previously chosen to be in the HMO or those who remained in the fee-for-service organization.
Finally, the experiment examined whether shouldering more of their own wellness intendance costs leads people to have better care of themselves. Information technology did not. Risky behaviors were non affected — rates of smoking and obesity, for case, did not change.
Implications for Today's Health Care Reform Give-and-take
Today's health intendance environment differs in fundamental ways from the one in which the HIE took identify. The scientific discipline of medicine has inverse beyond all dimensions. Managed care has become more prominent, as has prescription drug use. Doctors emphasize preventive care to a greater extent and know more about providing it. Given these and many other systemic changes, it is impossible to know whether a similar experiment undertaken today would produce similar results.
It is possible to accept two contrasting perspectives on the HIE's relevance to today's health intendance debate. On the ane hand, the study raises the possibility that cost sharing can be adapted to help achieve fundamental goals: containing costs and reducing waste without dissentious wellness or quality of care. Would pairing some course of cost sharing and managed intendance allow united states to exploit price sharing'due south benefits (reduced costs and unnecessary care, minor overall health furnishings) while avoiding its negatives (reduction in needed intendance, some health effects for poorer and sicker patients)? The study suggested that cost sharing should exist minimal or nonexistent for the poor, especially those with chronic disease.
On the other hand, the HIE showed that cost sharing can be a edgeless tool. It reduced both needed and unneeded health services. Indeed, subsequent RAND work on appropriateness of intendance institute that economic incentives by themselves practise not improve appropriateness of care or lead to clinically sensible reductions in service use.[3]
In addition, cost sharing may not address the main causes of cost growth. Cost sharing cuts expenditures by reducing visits but has little effect on the price of treatment in one case intendance is sought. If, equally is widely believed, cost increases are driven past treatment expense and new technologies, price sharing can contribute to reducing costs at each point in time just may take little effect on the overall rate of cost growth.
Testing the effects of cost sharing in today'south environment and determining its usefulness as a tool for health system reform would crave another large-scale demonstration. To our noesis, no such demonstration has been conducted since the HIE. However, important nonexperimental piece of work has been washed in the interim using the HIE'southward findings on the result of cost sharing in more targeted insurance plans. A recent series of RAND studies showed that cutting prescription co-payments for patients who needed cholesterol- lowering drugs the virtually could improve their health and salvage more than $1 billion annually in medical costs by increasing adherence and reducing the chance of hospitalization.[4] In this instance, reduced cost sharing led to greater savings and improved health.
As health reform reenters the national policy dialogue, RAND Health is in one case again providing a framework and objective analysis to inform the evaluation of options. The Comprehensive Assessment of Reform Efforts (COMPARE) initiative is developing a multidimensional framework within which a variety of proposed solutions to the problems in the U.S. health care system tin can be evaluated. RAND Wellness will apply a variety of analytic tools including microsimulation to explore the expected performance of the health care organisation over the next two decades in the absence of meaning policy change (i.due east., establish a base case). Proposals for change will be evaluated in comparison to the base case. This work continues the role that RAND Health began with the HIE by providing the facts and analysis necessary for informing health policy.
Notes
Sources
This Research Highlight summarizes primal findings from the RAND Health Insurance Experiment:
Robert H. Brook et al. "Quality of Ambulatory Care: Epidemiology and Comparison by Insurance Condition and Income." Medical Intendance, May 1990, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 392–433.
Robert H. Beck, John E. Ware, William H. Rogers, Emmett B. Keeler, Allyson Ross Davies, Cathy Donald Sherbourne, George A. Goldberg, Kathleen N. Lohr, Patti Military camp, and Joseph P. Newhouse. The Result of Coinsurance on the Health of Adults: Results from the RAND Wellness Insurance Experiment. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, R-3055-HHS, December 1984.
Emmett B. Keeler. "Effects of Toll Sharing on Employ of Medical Services and Wellness." Medical Practice Management, Summer 1992, pp. 317–321. Available online.
Kathleen Northward. Lohr, Robert H. Brook, Caren J. Kamberg, George A. Goldberg, Arleen Leibowitz, Joan Keesey, David Reboussin, and Joseph P. Newhouse. Apply of Medical Care in the RAND Health Insurance Experiment: Diagnosis- and Service-Specific Analyses in a Randomized Controlled Trial. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, R-3469-HHS, December 1986.
Joseph P. Newhouse and the Insurance Experiment Group. Free for All? Lessons from the RAND Wellness Experiment. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993.
Bibliographical annotation: Work on the HIE began in 1973 and ended in 1982. The written report led to over 300 publications, including journal articles, reports, and books. View a comprehensive bibliography of HIE-related publications »
This written report is office of the RAND Corporation Research cursory series. RAND research briefs present policy-oriented summaries of individual published, peer-reviewed documents or of a body of published work.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by constabulary. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial apply only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking direct to this production page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another grade, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications practice not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.
Citation
Format:
Source: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9174.html
Posted by: parksmusere1980.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Which Of The Following Is Not A Cost Saving Service In A Medical Plan"
Post a Comment