Currently Viewing:
The American Journal of Managed Care February 2020
Care Coordination for Veterans With COPD: A Positive Deviance Study
Ekaterina Anderson, PhD; Renda Soylemez Wiener, MD, MPH; Kirsten Resnick, MS; A. Rani Elwy, PhD; and Seppo T. Rinne, MD, PhD
Expand Predeductible Coverage Without Increasing Premiums or Deductibles
A. Mark Fendrick, MD
From the Editorial Board: Jeffrey D. Dunn, PharmD, MBA
Jeffrey D. Dunn, PharmD, MBA
Do Americans Have the Political Will to Tackle Healthcare Costs? A Q&A With Gail Wilensky, PhD
Interview by Allison Inserro
Risk Adjustment in Home Health Care CAHPS
Lisa M. Lines, PhD, MPH; Wayne L. Anderson, PhD; Harper Gordek, MPH; and Anne E. Kenyon, MBA
Reply to “Risk Adjustment in Home Health Care CAHPS”
Hsueh-Fen Chen, PhD; J. Mick Tilford, PhD; Robert F. Schuldt, MA; and Fei Wan, PhD
Preventive Drug Lists as Tools for Managing Asthma Medication Costs
Melissa B. Gilkey, PhD; Lauren A. Cripps, MA; Rachel S. Gruver, MPH; Deidre V. Washington, PhD; and Alison A. Galbraith, MD, MPH
Currently Reading
Co-payment Policies and Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening in Medicaid
Lindsay M. Sabik, PhD; Anushree M. Vichare, PhD; Bassam Dahman, PhD; and Cathy J. Bradley, PhD
A Population-Based Assessment of Proton Beam Therapy Utilization in California
Arti Parikh-Patel, PhD, MPH; Cyllene R. Morris, DVM, PhD; Frances B. Maguire, PhD, MPH; Megan E. Daly, MD; and Kenneth W. Kizer, MD, MPH
Racial and Ethnic Disparity in Palliative Care and Hospice Use
Tricia Johnson, PhD; Surrey Walton, PhD; Stacie Levine, MD; Erik Fister, MA; Aliza Baron, MA; and Sean O’Mahony, MB, BCh, BAO
Cost-effectiveness of Brentuximab Vedotin With Chemotherapy in Treatment of CD30-Expressing PTCL
Tatyana Feldman, MD; Denise Zou, MA; Mayvis Rebeira, PhD; Joseph Lee, PhD; Michelle Fanale, MD; Thomas Manley, MD; Shangbang Rao, PhD; Joseph Feliciano, PharmD; Mack Harris, BA; and Anuraag Kansal, PhD
Economic Value of Transcatheter Valve Replacement for Inoperable Aortic Stenosis
Jesse Sussell, PhD; Emma van Eijndhoven, MS, MA; Taylor T. Schwartz, MPH; Suzanne J. Baron, MD, MSc; Christin Thompson, PhD; Seth Clancy, MPH; and Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD
Impact of Complex Care Management on Spending and Utilization for High-Need, High-Cost Medicaid Patients
Brian W. Powers, MD, MBA; Farhad Modarai, DO; Sandeep Palakodeti, MD, MPH; Manisha Sharma, MD; Nupur Mehta, MD; Sachin H. Jain, MD, MBA; and Vivek Garg, MD, MBA
Medical Utilization Surrounding Initial Opioid-Related Diagnoses by Coding Method
Amber Watson, PharmD; David M. Simon, PhD; Meridith Blevins Peratikos, MS; and Elizabeth Ann Stringer, PhD

Co-payment Policies and Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening in Medicaid

Lindsay M. Sabik, PhD; Anushree M. Vichare, PhD; Bassam Dahman, PhD; and Cathy J. Bradley, PhD
Co-payments for preventive services can discourage breast and cervical cancer screening among Medicaid enrollees, particularly breast cancer screening, which is more costly and time-consuming.
DISCUSSION

This paper considers how state co-payment policies affect breast and cervical cancer screening among low-income nondisabled women enrolled in FFS Medicaid. For both mammograms and Pap tests, women were less likely to receive screening when their state required co-payments for these services. We also compared women across states and years with different co-payment structures to understand whether there was a difference in screening among those required to pay co-payments that apply to all visits, those required to pay co-payments for most outpatient visits but for whom co-payments are waived for preventive services, and those without co-payments. For both types of screening, the group that had co-payments for some visits but had them waived for preventive care had the highest rates of screening. Counterintuitively, women with co-payments for preventive services are somewhat more likely to receive Pap tests compared with those who face no co-payments for any services. This difference in findings between Pap tests and mammograms may arise from differences in these screening procedures’ complexity and time costs; this warrants further investigation in future research.

Our results are strongest for mammography, with a bigger difference in screening rates observed for mammograms compared with Pap tests between those with co-payments for preventive services versus with those without co-payments for preventive care. Mammograms are likely to require a separate visit that may entail an additional co-payment, whereas a Pap test could be completed during a visit to an OB/GYN or other primary care physician. Therefore, co-payment policies appear to restrict services that require separate visits and additional costs for the patient.

Our findings suggest that Medicaid policies should consider the impact of co-payments on utilization of potentially high-value services such as screening. Although concerns have been raised regarding overscreening in older and higher-income populations,36,37 screening rates among the nonelderly Medicaid population are far below population-wide target levels.38 Thus, the influence of Medicaid policies, including cost-sharing requirements, on utilization of high-value services needs careful consideration before implementation. These policies could result in future higher utilization and costs.

Limitations

Notably, annual screening rates in Medicaid claims data are lower than survey estimates for the general population, low-income population, or Medicaid-enrolled women. This might reflect a combination of low screening rates among Medicaid enrollees, inability to measure screenings not paid for by Medicaid, and overestimates of screening in survey data. Our study does not capture screenings completed outside the Medicaid program. We estimate all models for 2 samples: those continuously enrolled for all 12 months of a calendar year and those with at least 1 month of enrollment within the year. The first is a consistently enrolled Medicaid sample, whereas the second includes those who may have dropped out of Medicaid for a period of time and thus may have had a screening test outside of Medicaid reimbursement, but may also be more representative of a population known to churn in and out of Medicaid enrollment. Further, this study examines changes in annual screening for breast and cervical cancer over time in the context of changes in cost-sharing requirements; we do not capture whether the women in the sample receive guideline-recommended screening, and although our study uses multiple years of data, we capture just 3 nonadjacent calendar years, limiting the observation period. Therefore, we cannot assess longitudinal screening behavior outside these time frames. Other study limitations include the fact that we cannot control for all state-year differences in policy and health systems factors that may influence whether women receive recommended screenings. Further, the number of states that require co-payments for most services but waive them for preventive care is small. Finally, the data used are from the pre-ACA period, and the characteristics of nonelderly adult enrollees may have changed under Medicaid expansions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results offer insight for policy, practice, and future research. First, state Medicaid programs that do not require co-payments for preventive services have higher rates of screening among nonelderly, nondisabled women. Second, rates of annual screening among women enrolled in Medicaid are low. Third, we find suggestive evidence that the full range of cost-sharing policies (including for other types of services) may affect utilization of preventive care in the Medicaid population. The use of longitudinal data could improve our understanding of cost-sharing policies and allow us to assess how these policies facilitate or create barriers to preventive services in low-income insured populations over time.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Yangyang Deng, MS, for programming support and Stephanie Hochhalter, MPH, MSW, for research assistance.

Author Affiliations: Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh (LMS), Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Health Policy and Management, George Washington University (AMV), Washington, DC; Department of Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University (BD), Richmond, VA; University of Colorado Cancer Center (CJB), Aurora, CO; Department of Health Systems, Management, and Policy, Colorado School of Public Health (CJB), Aurora, CO.

Source of Funding: This work was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health (R01CA178980, cofunded by the National Cancer Institute and the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research).

Author Disclosures: The authors report no relationship or financial interest with any entity that would pose a conflict of interest with the subject matter of this article.

Authorship Information: Concept and design (LMS, BD, CJB); acquisition of data (LMS); analysis and interpretation of data (LMS, AMV, BD, CJB); drafting of the manuscript (LMS, AMV, CJB); critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content (LMS, AMV, BD); statistical analysis (LMS, BD); obtaining funding (LMS); and administrative, technical, or logistic support (LMS).

Address Correspondence to: Lindsay M. Sabik, PhD, Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh, 130 De Soto St, A613, Pittsburgh, PA 15261. Email: lsabik@pitt.edu.
REFERENCES

1. Hartmann KE, Hall SA, Nanda K, Boggess JF, Zolnoun D. Screening for cervical cancer. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality website. ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/prevent/pdfser/cervcanser.pdf. Published January 2002. Accessed July 1, 2014.

2. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):727-737; W237-W242. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00009.

3. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al, eds. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2010. National Cancer Institute website. seer.cancer.gov/archive/csr/1975_2010. Published April 2013. Accessed July 1, 2014.

4. Pierce Campbell CM, Menezes LJ, Paskett ED, Giuliano AR. Prevention of invasive cervical cancer in the United States: past, present, and future. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21(9):1402-1408. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-1158.

5. Hendren S, Chin N, Fisher S, et al. Patients’ barriers to receipt of cancer care, and factors associated with needing more assistance from a patient navigator. J Natl Med Assoc. 2011;103(8):701-710. doi: 10.1016/s0027-9684(15)30409-0.

6. Hendren SK, Raich PC, Winters P, et al. Barriers to care faced by newly diagnosed patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(15 suppl):9095-9095. doi: 10.1200/jco.2011.29.15_suppl.9095.

7. Melvin CL, Jefferson MS, Rice LJ, Cartmell KB, Halbert CH. Predictors of participation in mammography screening among non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic white, and Hispanic women. Front Public Health. 2016;4:188. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00188.

8. Holding steady, looking ahead: annual findings of a 50-state survey of eligibility rules, enrollment and renewal procedures, and cost sharing practices in Medicaid and CHIP, 2010-2011. Kaiser Family Foundation website. kff.org/health-reform/report/holding-steady-looking-ahead-annual-findings-of. Published January 1, 2011. Accessed January 28, 2020.

9. Annual updates on eligibility rules, enrollment and renewal procedures, and cost-sharing practices in Medicaid and CHIP. Kaiser Family Foundation website. kff.org/medicaid/report/annual-updates-on-eligibility-rules-enrollment-and. Published 2012. Accessed January 14, 2020.

10. Saloner B, Sabik L, Sommers BD. Pinching the poor? Medicaid cost sharing under the ACA. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(13):1177-1180. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1316370.

11. Cassidy A. Preventive services without cost sharing. Health Affairs website. healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20101228.861785/full. Published December 28, 2010. Accessed May 10, 2018.

12. Ku L, Paradise J, Thompson V. Data note: Medicaid’s role in providing access to preventive care for adults. Kaiser Family Foundation website. kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/data-note-medicaids-role-in-providing-access-to-preventive-care-for-adults. Published May 17, 2017. Accessed June 1, 2018.

13. Secretary Price and CMS Administrator Verma take first joint action: affirm partnership of HHS, CMS, and states to improve Medicaid program [news release]. Washington, DC: HHS; March 14, 2017. hhs.gov/about/news/2017/03/14/secretary-price-and-cms-administrator-verma-take-first-joint-action.html. Accessed June 1, 2018.

14. Powell V, Saloner B, Sabik LM. Cost sharing in Medicaid: assumptions, evidence, and future directions. Med Care Res Rev. 2016;73(4):383-409. doi: 10.1177/1077558715617381.

15. Maciosek MV, Coffield AB, Flottemesch TJ, Edwards NM, Solberg LI. Greater use of preventive services in U.S. health care could save lives at little or no cost. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(9):1656-1660. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2008.0701.

16. Cancer stat facts: cervical cancer. National Cancer Institute website. seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/cervix.html. Accessed September 10, 2018.

17. Halpern MT, Bian J, Ward EM, Schrag NM, Chen AY. Insurance status and stage of cancer at diagnosis among women with breast cancer. Cancer. 2007;110(2):403-411. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22786.

18. Halpern MT, Romaire MA, Haber SG, Tangka FK, Sabatino SA, Howard DH. Impact of state-specific Medicaid reimbursement and eligibility policies on receipt of cancer screening. Cancer. 2014;120(19):3016-3024. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28704.

19. Halpern MT, Ward EM, Pavluck AL, Schrag NM, Bian J, Chen AY. Association of insurance status and ethnicity with cancer stage at diagnosis for 12 cancer sites: a retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9(3):222-231. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70032-9.

20. Manning WG, Newhouse JP, Duan N, Keeler EB, Leibowitz A, Marquis MS. Health insurance and the demand for medical care: evidence from a randomized experiment. Am Econ Rev. 1987;77(3):251-277.

21. Chandra A, Gruber J, McKnight R. The impact of patient cost-sharing on low-income populations: evidence from Massachusetts. J Health Econ. 2014;33:57-66. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2013.10.008.

22. Sabik LM, Gandhi SO. Copayments and emergency department use among adult Medicaid enrollees. Health Econ. 2016;25(5):529-542. doi: 10.1002/hec.3164.

23. Subramanian S. Impact of Medicaid copayments on patients with cancer: lessons for Medicaid expansion under health reform. Med Care. 2011;49(9):842-847. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31821b34db.

24. Trivedi AN, Rakowski W, Ayanian JZ. Effect of cost sharing on screening mammography in Medicare health plans. N Engl Med. 2008;358(4):375-383. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa070929.

25. State coverage of preventive services for women under Medicaid: findings from a state-level survey. Kaiser Family Foundation website. kff.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/8330.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2012. Accessed January 14, 2020.

26. Coverage of preventive services for adults in Medicaid. Kaiser Family Foundation website. kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/coverage-of-preventive-services-for-adults-in. Published September 1, 2012. Accessed March 15, 2015.

27. Medicaid benefits database. Kaiser Family Foundation website. kff.org/data-collection/medicaid-benefits-database. Accessed January 14, 2020.

28. Wilensky S, Gray E. Coverage of Medicaid preventive services for adults—a national review. National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable website. nccrt.org/wp-content/uploads/CoverageofMedicaidPreventiveServicesforAdultsREPORT.pdf. Published November 2012. Accessed March 15, 2015.

29. Byrd VLH, Dodd AH. Assessing the usability of encounter data for enrollees in comprehensive managed care across MAX 2007–2009. CMS website. cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Computer-Data-and-Systems/MedicaidDataSourcesGenInfo/Downloads/MAX_IB_15_AssessingUsability.pdf. Published December 2012. Accessed March 15, 2015.

30. Byrd VLH, Dodd AH, Malsberger R, Zlatinov A. Assessing the usability of MAX 2008 encounter data for enrollees in comprehensive managed care. CMS website. cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Computer-Data-and-Systems/MedicaidDataSourcesGenInfo/Downloads/MAX_IB7_EncounterData_071312.pdf. Published July 2012. Accessed March 15, 2015.

31. Peek ME, Han JH. Disparities in screening mammography: current status, interventions, and implications. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(2):184-194. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30254.x.

32. Rodríguez MA, Ward LM, Pérez-Stable EJ. Breast and cervical cancer screening: impact of health insurance status, ethnicity, and nativity of Latinas. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(3):235-241.

33. Schueler KM, Chu PW, Smith-Bindman R. Factors associated with mammography utilization: a systematic quantitative review of the literature. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2008;17(9):1477-1498. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2007.0603.

34. Institute of Medicine. Coverage Matters: Insurance and Health Care. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2001.

35. Sabik LM, Dahman B, Vichare A, Bradley CJ. Breast and cervical cancer screening among Medicaid beneficiaries: the role of physician payment and managed care. Med Care Res Rev. 2020;77(1):34-45. doi: 10.1177/1077558718771123.

36. Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):1998-2005. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1206809.

37. Welch HG, Prorok PC, O’Malley AJ, Kramer BS. Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1438-1447. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1600249.

38. Cancer: objectives. HealthyPeople.gov website. healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/cancer/objectives. Accessed July 1, 2016.
PDF
 
Copyright AJMC 2006-2020 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
x
Welcome the the new and improved AJMC.com, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up