TY - JOUR
T1 - Association Between Patient Cost Sharing and Cardiac Rehabilitation Adherence
AU - Farah, Michel
AU - Abdallah, Maya
AU - Szalai, Heidi
AU - Berry, Robert
AU - Lagu, Tara
AU - Lindenauer, Peter K.
AU - Pack, Quinn R.
N1 - Funding Information:
Grant Support: The work was supported by 1K23HL135440, 1K01HL114745, and 1K24HL132008 (Q.R.P., T.L., and P.K.L., respectively) from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health of Bethesda, MD.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
PY - 2019/12
Y1 - 2019/12
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075652347&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85075652347&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.07.018
DO - 10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.07.018
M3 - Article
C2 - 31806097
AN - SCOPUS:85075652347
SN - 0025-6196
VL - 94
SP - 2390
EP - 2398
JO - Mayo Clinic Proceedings
JF - Mayo Clinic Proceedings
IS - 12
ER -