Two-year Trends in Cancer Screening Among Low Socioeconomic Status Women in an HMO-based High-deductible Health Plan
- 293 Downloads
Cancer screening is often fully covered under high-deductible health plans (HDHP), but low socioeconomic status (SES) women still might forego testing.
To determine the impact of switching to a HDHP on breast and cervical cancer screening among women of low SES.
Pre-post with comparison group.
Four thousand one hundred and eighty-eight health plan members enrolled for one year before and up to two years after an employer-mandated switch from a traditional HMO to an HMO-based HDHP, compared with 9418 propensity score matched controls who remained in HMOs by employer choice. Both groups had low outpatient copayments. High-deductible members had full coverage of mammography and Pap smears, but $500 to $2000 individual deductibles for most other services. HMO members had full coverage of cancer screening and low copayments for other services without any deductible. We stratified analyses by SES.
Transition to a HDHP.
Annual breast and cervical cancer screening rates; rates of annual preventive outpatient visits.
In follow-up years 1 and 2, low SES HDHP members experienced no statistically detectable changes in rates of breast cancer screening (ratio of change, 1.14, 95 % CI, [0.93,1.40] and 1.05, [0.80,1.37], respectively) or preventive visits (difference-in-differences, +1.9 %, [−11.9 %,+17.7 %] and +10.1 %, [−9.4 %,+33.7 %], respectively) relative to HMO counterparts. Similarly, among low SES HDHP members eligible for cervical cancer screening, no significant changes occurred in either screening rates (1.01, [0.86,1.20] and 1.08, [0.86,1.35]) or preventive visits (+0.2 %, [−11.4 %,+13.3 %] and −1.4 %, [−18.1,+18.6]). Patterns were statistically similar for high SES members.
During two follow-up years, transition to an HMO-based HDHP with coverage of primary care visits and cancer screening did not lead to differentially lower rates of breast and cervical cancer screening or preventive visits for low SES women. Generalizability is limited to commercially insured women transitioning to HDHPs with low cost-sharing for cancer screening and primary care visits, a common design.
KEY WORDShigh-deductible health plans cancer screening vulnerable populations women’s health
The authors would like to acknowledge the helpful assistance with data collection of Irina Miroshnik, MS, of the Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Department of Population Medicine. Dr. Wharam affirms that everyone who contributed significantly to the work is acknowledged here.
This study was funded by a grant from the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Foundation.
Dr. Wharam presented interim results from this study on May 14, 2009 at the Society of General Internal Medicine national meeting in Miami, Florida
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.
- 1.Davis K. Will consumer-directed health care improve system performance? Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2004;(773):1–4.Google Scholar
- 6.Kaiser. The Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust Employer health benefits 2011 annual survey. 2011; http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/2011/8225.pdf. Accessed 21 March, 2012.
- 7.Reuters. Advocates see growth for health savings accounts. 2010; http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62M4AY20100323. Accessed 21 March 2012.
- 21.Wharam JF, Graves AJ, Landon BE, Zhang F, Soumerai SB, Ross-Degnan D. Two-year Trends in Colorectal Cancer Screening After Switch to a High-deductible Health Plan. Med Care. May 13 2011.Google Scholar
- 24.Haviland A, McDevitt R, Sood N, Marquis MS. How Do Consumer-Directed Health Plans Affect Vulnerable Populations? Forum for Health Economics & Policy. 2011;14(2).Google Scholar
- 25.HEDIS. Breast cancer screening: percentage of women 50 to 69 years of age who had one or more mammograms during the measurement year or the year prior to the measurement year. 2006; http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=5756. Accessed 21 March, 2012.
- 26.HEDIS. Cervical cancer screening: percentage of women 18 to 64 years of age who received one or more Pap tests during the measurement year or the two years prior to the measurement year. 2006; http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=5757. Accessed 21 March, 2012.
- 27.HEDIS. Colorectal cancer screening: percentage of adults 50 to 80 years of age who had appropriate screening for colorectal cancer. 2006; http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=5755. Accessed 21 March, 2012.
- 31.Coca-Perraillon M. Local and Global Optimal Propensity Score Matching. 2007; http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/forum2007/185-2007.pdf. Accessed 21 March, 2012.
- 32.The Johns Hopkins ACG Case-Mix System Reference Manual, Version 7.0. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University; 2005.Google Scholar
- 33.Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat. Apr 27 2010.Google Scholar
- 36.U.S. Bureau of the Census. Geographical areas reference manual, Washington, D.C., U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1994.Google Scholar
- 39.Bonito AJ, Bann C, Eicheldinger C, Carpenter L. Creation of New Race-Ethnicity Codes and Socioeconomic Status (SES) Indicators for Medicare beneficiaries. 2008; http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/medicareindicators/medicareindicators.pdf. Accessed 21 March, 2012.
- 44.http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/sbfaq.pdf. Accessed 21 March 2012.
- 45.Fronstin P. Employers may move By 2018 To Avoid Tax. 2010; http://healthcare.nationaljournal.com/2010/05/a-future-for-consumerdirected.php. Accessed 21 March, 2012.
- 46.The Boston Globe Staff. Study: High deductible health plans may proliferate. 2010; http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2010/07/high_deductible.html. Accessed 21 March, 2012.