AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
YES Consumer cost sharing is by no means a preferred tool by which to optimize the value of health spending.
A better approach would be to rely primarily on clinicians and hospitals. However, the triad of professionalism, government regulation, and managed care insurers has proved insufficient to achieve consistent delivery of high quality, cost-effective care, as articulated by the Institute of Medicine in its "Crossing the Quality Chasm" report.
If we use cost sharing, it should be supplemented with provider payment reforms. In addition, we should tailor it to promoting high quality of care at the most affordable total cost of services, rather than use it as a blunt instrument. The lessons of the research literature are dear that increasing cost-sharing without giving consumers guidance on which providers and treatment options offer superior quality and efficiency is futile; most consumers are unable to distinguish ineffective or inefficient services from effective, efficient services.
The method most likely to optimize consumers' value from health care spending requires calibrating increased consumer out-of-pocket cost to the incremental cost incurred by their insurance pool when a consumer selects a less efficient pathway to high quality. The latter is shown by selection of a brand drug when a lower-cost generic is available. For equity to be ensured, maximum consumer out-of-pocket spending limits should be geared to consumer income levels.
Such tailored cost-sharing solutions would also enable lower consumer cost sharing when consumers select providers or treatment options that constitute the most efficient pathway to high quality.
An example of this type of patient cost sharing is the use of tiered consumer co-payments based on the efficiency and quality of the providers, the treatments they select, and whether a consumer participates in an individualized health risk reduction program. Under such cost sharing, consumers aren't forced to research the quality and efficiency ratings relevant to each selection that they make; rather, differences in quality and efficiency ratings between options are "baked into" differences in the level of cost sharing.
These solutions aim at encouraging consumers to be better stewards of the "commons" of their health insurance pools, improving health insurance affordability, and promoting quality ...
Source: HighBeam Research, Does patient cost sharing lead to better care?(Pro & Con)