4.7 Article

Out-of-pocket costs for preventive care persist almost a decade after the Affordable Care Act

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 150, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106690

关键词

-

资金

  1. Kate B. Reynolds Charitable Trust
  2. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  3. Boston University School of Public Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite the reduction in out-of-pocket costs for preventive care after the implementation of the ACA, some patients still face unexpected bills. Research shows that Americans with employer-sponsored insurance still bear a cost burden for preventive care, with some enrollees needing to pay hundreds of dollars for eligible preventive services.
Higher cost-sharing reduces the amount of high-value health care that patients use, such as preventive care. Despite a sharp reduction in out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for preventive care after the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), patients often still get unexpected bills after receiving preventive services. We examined out-of-pocket costs for preventive care in 2018, almost ten years after the implementation of the ACA. We quantify the excess cost burden on a national scale using a partial identification approach and explore how this burden varies geographically and across preventive services. We found that in addition to premium costs meant to cover preventive care, Americans with employer-sponsored insurance were still charged between $75 million and $219 million in total for services that ought to be free to them ($0.50 to $1.40 per ESI-covered individual and $0.75 to $2.17 per ESI-covered individual using preventive care). However, some enrollees still faced OOP costs for eligible preventive services ranging into the hundreds of dollars. OOP costs are most likely to be incurred for women's services (e.g., contraception) and basic screenings (e.g., diabetes and cholesterol screenings), and by patients in the South or in rural areas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据