Relationship between insurance and access and cost of care in patients with diabetes before and after the affordable care act

IF 1.8 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES International Journal of Health Governance Pub Date : 2020-12-16 DOI:10.1108/ijhg-02-2020-0014
Arjun Varadarajan, R. Walker, Joni S. Williams, Kinfe G. Bishu, S. Nagavally, L. Egede
{"title":"Relationship between insurance and access and cost of care in patients with diabetes before and after the affordable care act","authors":"Arjun Varadarajan, R. Walker, Joni S. Williams, Kinfe G. Bishu, S. Nagavally, L. Egede","doi":"10.1108/ijhg-02-2020-0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of insurance coverage changes over time for patients with diabetes on expenditures and access to care before and after the Affordable Care Act (ACA).Design/methodology/approachThe Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) from 2002–2017 was used. Access included having a usual source of care, having delay in care or having delay in obtaining prescription medicine. Expenditures included inpatient, outpatient, office-based, prescription and emergency costs. Panels were broken into four time categories: 2002–2005 (pre-ACA), 2006–2009 (pre-ACA), 2010–2013 (post-ACA) and 2014–2017 (post-ACA). Logistic models for access and two-part regression models for cost were used to understand differences by insurance type over time.FindingsType of insurance changed significantly over time, with an increase for public insurance from 30.7% in 2002–2005 to 36.5% in 2014–2017 and a decrease in private insurance from 62.4% in 2002–2005 to 58.2% in 2014–2017. Compared to those with private insurance, those who were uninsured had lower inpatient ($2,147 less), outpatient ($431 less), office-based ($1,555 less), prescription ($1,869 less) and emergency cost ($92 less). Uninsured were also more likely to have delay in getting medical care (OR = 2.22; 95% CI 1.86, 3.06) and prescription medicine (OR = 1.85; 95% CI 1.53, 2.24) compared with privately insured groups.Originality/valueThough insurance coverage among patients with diabetes did not increase significantly, the type of insurance changed overtime and fewer individuals reported having a usual source of care. Uninsured individuals spent less across all cost types and were more likely to report delay in care despite the passage of the ACA.","PeriodicalId":42859,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijhg-02-2020-0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of insurance coverage changes over time for patients with diabetes on expenditures and access to care before and after the Affordable Care Act (ACA).Design/methodology/approachThe Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) from 2002–2017 was used. Access included having a usual source of care, having delay in care or having delay in obtaining prescription medicine. Expenditures included inpatient, outpatient, office-based, prescription and emergency costs. Panels were broken into four time categories: 2002–2005 (pre-ACA), 2006–2009 (pre-ACA), 2010–2013 (post-ACA) and 2014–2017 (post-ACA). Logistic models for access and two-part regression models for cost were used to understand differences by insurance type over time.FindingsType of insurance changed significantly over time, with an increase for public insurance from 30.7% in 2002–2005 to 36.5% in 2014–2017 and a decrease in private insurance from 62.4% in 2002–2005 to 58.2% in 2014–2017. Compared to those with private insurance, those who were uninsured had lower inpatient ($2,147 less), outpatient ($431 less), office-based ($1,555 less), prescription ($1,869 less) and emergency cost ($92 less). Uninsured were also more likely to have delay in getting medical care (OR = 2.22; 95% CI 1.86, 3.06) and prescription medicine (OR = 1.85; 95% CI 1.53, 2.24) compared with privately insured groups.Originality/valueThough insurance coverage among patients with diabetes did not increase significantly, the type of insurance changed overtime and fewer individuals reported having a usual source of care. Uninsured individuals spent less across all cost types and were more likely to report delay in care despite the passage of the ACA.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
《负担得起的护理法案》前后糖尿病患者的保险与获得护理和护理成本之间的关系
目的本文的目的是研究在《平价医疗法案》(ACA)颁布前后,糖尿病患者的保险范围随时间的变化对支出和获得医疗服务的影响。设计/方法/方法使用2002-2017年的医疗支出小组调查(MEPS)。获取途径包括有通常的护理来源、延迟护理或延迟获得处方药。支出包括住院费、门诊费、办公室费、处方费和急诊费。小组分为四个时间类别:2002年至2005年(ACA之前)、2006年至2009年(ACA前)、2010年至2013年(ACA后)和2014年至2017年(ACA后)。使用准入的逻辑模型和成本的两部分回归模型来了解不同保险类型随时间的差异。随着时间的推移,保险类型发生了显著变化,公共保险从2002–2005年的30.7%增加到2014–2017年的36.5%,私人保险从2002-2005年的62.4%减少到2014–17年的58.2%。与那些有私人保险的人相比,那些没有保险的人住院费(减少2147美元)、门诊费(减少431美元)、办公室费(减少1555美元)、处方费(减少1869美元)和急诊费(减少92美元)更低。与私人保险组相比,未投保者在获得医疗护理(OR=2.22;95%CI 1.86,3.06)和处方药(OR=1.85;95%CI 1.53,2.24)方面也更有可能延迟。独创性/价值尽管糖尿病患者的保险范围没有显著增加,但保险类型随着时间的推移而变化,报告有常规护理来源的人越来越少。尽管ACA获得通过,但未参保人员在所有费用类型中的支出都较少,更有可能报告护理延迟。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Health Governance
International Journal of Health Governance HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
15.40%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: International Journal of Health Governance (IJHG) is oriented to serve those at the policy and governance levels within government, healthcare systems or healthcare organizations. It bridges the academic, public and private sectors, presenting case studies, research papers, reviews and viewpoints to provide an understanding of health governance that is both practical and actionable for practitioners, managers and policy makers. Policy and governance to promote, maintain or restore health extends beyond the clinical care aspect alone.
期刊最新文献
The response of regional general hospitals in Indonesia to COVID-19 Editorial: Time to treat the climate and nature crisis as one indivisible global health emergency IJHG review 28.4 Management of gallstone disease and chronic liver diseases during the COVID-19 outbreak in Ukraine: an ecological study Transforming food systems: a case of Eat Right India
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1