Health care cost-sharing prompts consumers to slash medical spending

June 16, 2015 by Ben Handel, The Conversation
This graph shows how much employees reduced their medical spending after their plans changed (red line). Consumers are grouped into sickness “quartiles”. The top one represents consumers predicted to be sickest, while the bottom line represents the healthiest. Credit: Brot-Goldberg, Chandra, Handel and Kolstad, Author provided

Is that surgery really worth it? Do I really value that cancer screening? Is that extra imaging service necessary?

These are the kinds of questions consumers ask themselves when their insurance plans require higher cost-sharing for medical services. This is a new reality in the US health care system as large employers offering coverage have moved aggressively toward less generous, high-deductible insurance offerings.

This shift was accelerated by the "Cadillac Tax" provision contained in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which, starting in 2018, places an excise tax on employers offering insurance plans that cover very high levels of . Further, many of the consumers enrolling in the public state exchanges created under the ACA have enrolled in lower- coverage financial plans that cover an average of 60% (bronze) or 70% (silver) of medical expenditures, similar to typical high-deductible coverage.

Though these policies are in part motivated by the goverment's need to reduce its share of total health care , they are also driven by the expectation that they will lead consumers to use higher-value, lower-cost medical services.

In my recent research with Zarek Brot-Goldberg, Amitabh Chandra, and Jon Kolstad, we dug into the mechanisms for how and why consumers reduce medical spending when faced with higher cost-sharing.

To do this, we studied the medical claims and medical spending of more than 150,000 employees and dependents from one large firm that moved everyone from an insurance plan that provided completely free health care to a high-deductible plan covering 78% of medical spending on average.

During the switch, the in-network providers that consumers could access and the services covered remained the same. As a result, this switch presented an excellent opportunity to assess in detail how consumers respond to markedly increased cost-sharing.

Primarily, we wanted to know whether employees would reduce their medical spending as a result of the change and, if so, by how much. Further, we hoped to learn where specifically they'd cut back. Would they spend less on nonessential services or reduce spending across the board? Would they try to find cheaper sources of health care? Do some employees cut more than others? Do employees correctly perceive the true marginal price of care in a complex insurance contract?

Health care spending plunges

We first established that increased cost-sharing does reduce medical spending at the firm. Age- and inflation-adjusted medical spending dropped by 19% – from a base of approximately US$750 million in spending – when employees switched to high-deductible coverage.

This chart shows how much employees cut their spending on a range of medical services from 2012 to 2013. Credit: Brot-Goldberg, Chandra, Handel and Kolstad, Author provided

Strikingly, many of the spending reductions come from the sickest employees. The sickest 25% (based on prior diagnoses each year) reduced spending by one-quarter after shifting coverage. This is especially notable, and somewhat surprising, since these employees earn relatively high incomes and their maximum out-of-pocket payment in high-deductible coverage for the calendar year was approximately $6,500 for a family.

How did consumers reduce spending? A detailed data analysis reveals that medical prices did not go down. Further, we show that consumers did not price-shop after the switch – that is, they did not move toward cheaper providers, for example, when they were going to undergo a specific procedure.

It turns out that all spending reductions were directly linked to quantity reductions: consumers just consumed less medical care.

Cuts across the board

Importantly, it didn't seem like consumers were particularly choosy about what kind of health care they cut: consumers appeared to reduce consumption across a range of medical services, from low to high value.

For example, quantity reductions led to a 22% drop in spending on imaging services (such as MRIs or CT Scans), some of which are likely unnecessary. However, consumers also reduced how many preventive health services they used – which policymakers typically believe are underutilized – by 16%.

The cuts were across the board. Spending on mental health care fell 8%, inpatient and outpatient hospital services declined 14% and 17%, respectively, drug purchases dropped 20%, and emergency room services plunged 27%. Of the top 30 medical procedures (by revenue) that we investigated, we found that consumers reduced spending for 23 of them.

Simply put, consumers did not look for cheaper services but consumed less medical care, and did so across almost the entire range of medical services.

Insurance price misperceptions

One possible reason for why these sick, relatively high-income consumers reduced potentially valuable medical spending is that they perceived the marginal price of their medical care to be higher than it actually is.

This chart studies how consumers reduce spending depending on different financial features of a high-deductible insurance plan. Consumers under the deductible contribute the most to reduced medical spending in any given month, while those who have passed the deductible and are either (i) paying coinsurance or (ii) reached their out-of-pocket cap reduce spending by less. Credit: Brot-Goldberg, Chandra, Handel and Kolstad, Author provided

Take the example of a consumer who knows he/she is quite sick entering the year and expects to spend a lot on health care. That consumer should not worry about the deductible and cost-sharing when making medical decisions early in the year because he/she knows that by the following January, all medical care used after passing the plan's out-of-pocket limit will be free. Thus, the true marginal price of health care for this predictably sick consumer is close to $0, no matter how high the deductible is, so care consumed early in the year is essentially free as well.

But we found that these consumers substantially reduced spending early in the year when under the deductible, but once they passed it spent more. In other words, many consumers whose true marginal price for care throughout the year is essentially zero because of their impending high spending don't treat incremental care as free when under the deductible. Instead, they respond as if the price of care under the deductible is the relevant price, despite the fact that they will spend that money during the year regardless.

This suggests that they misperceive their own health risks, misperceive how much costs or don't understand how the high-deductible insurance contract actually works. Similar consumer price misperceptions are also documented in Medicare Part D, electricity markets and broadband markets.

What this means for reform efforts

Giving consumers direct incentives to think about their health care spending is a cornerstone of health reform in the US and plays a large role in several national health systems around the world, such as in France.

An important prerequisite for these reforms to be successful is that consumers, who may or may not be making medical decisions in conjunction with physicians, understand the costs and benefits of different health care services. Our evidence suggests that don't seem to be responding to increased cost-sharing with nuanced expertise and instead reduce consumption across the range of , some valuable and some likely wasteful.

Additionally, they reduce care heavily when sick and under the deductible, even when their true marginal price of care is very low.

Thus, while increased consumer cost-sharing can be an effective instrument for reducing spending, it may be a blunt instrument for encouraging higher value medical spending, especially relative to supply-side interventions that target physician incentives or interventions that reduce the use of high-cost low-value medical technologies.

As health reform pushes forward, policymakers will need to recognize the limits of consumer cost-sharing policies and focus more on how to appropriately incentivize providers to deliver high-value, low-cost care.

Explore further: AMA: Physicians driving the slowing of health care costs

Related Stories

AMA: Physicians driving the slowing of health care costs

May 29, 2015
(HealthDay)—Low physician spending is contributing to an overall slowing of health care costs, according to a viewpoint piece published by the American Medical Association (AMA).

New health care index reports increases in consumer costs

May 13, 2015
(HealthDay)—A new Health Care Index shows increases in consumer costs, according to a report published by U.S. News & World Report.

New role of patient as consumer requires market changes

September 15, 2014
(HealthDay)—The new consumer retail market in U.S. health care is necessary and will benefit consumers, and as consumers take on more costs of care, access to information to help them make informed decisions is crucial, ...

Renewing health insurance should take more than 15 minutes, specialist says

October 24, 2014
Consumers spend more time picking out a television than picking out health insurance—and that could be a costly mistake, says a Kansas State University community health specialist.

Healthcare spending for privately insured children with diabetes rises sharply, 2011-2013

May 7, 2015
Per capita health care spending for children with diabetes covered by employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) grew faster than for any other age group with diabetes, rising 7% from 2011 to 2012 and 9.6% from 2012 to 2013, according ...

Recommended for you

A low-gluten, high-fiber diet may be healthier than gluten-free

November 16, 2018
When healthy people eat a low-gluten and fibre-rich diet compared with a high-gluten diet, they experience less intestinal discomfort including less bloating. Researchers at University of Copenhagen show that this is due ...

Youth dating violence shaped by parents' conflict-handling views, study finds

November 16, 2018
Parents who talk to their children about nonviolent ways of resolving conflict may reduce children's likelihood of physically or psychologically abusing their dating partners later—even when parents give contradictory messages ...

Why we shouldn't like coffee, but we do

November 15, 2018
Why do we like the bitter taste of coffee? Bitterness evolved as a natural warning system to protect the body from harmful substances. By evolutionary logic, we should want to spit it out.

Dietary fat is good? Dietary fat is bad? Coming to consensus

November 15, 2018
Which is better, a low-fat/high-carbohydrate diet or a high-fat/low-carbohydrate diet—or is it the type of fat that matters? In a new paper featured on the cover of Science magazine's special issue on nutrition, researchers ...

Colder, darker climates increase alcohol consumption and liver disease

November 14, 2018
Where you live could influence how much you drink. According to new research from the University of Pittsburgh Division of Gastroenterology, people living in colder regions with less sunlight drink more alcohol than their ...

Survey reveals how we use music as a possible sleep aid

November 14, 2018
Many individuals use music in the hope that it fights sleep difficulties, according to a study published November 14 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by Tabitha Trahan of the University of Sheffield, UK, and colleagues. ...

0 comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.