ライフサイエンスコーパス: copayment

1 patients who were likely to know about their copayment.

2 selected control groups not affected by the copayment.

3 n who did or did not have required insurance copayments.

4 re exempt from the deductible and subject to copayments.

5 ct of Columbia enacted laws that cap insulin copayments.

6 ents with higher (top quartile) versus lower copayments.

7 ationing achieved through the use of patient copayments.

8 -similar plans that made no changes in these copayments.

9 dered when making decisions about increasing copayments.

10 =80%) declined significantly more in the all copayment (-19.2%) and some copayment (-19.3%) groups re

11 more in the all copayment (-19.2%) and some copayment (-19.3%) groups relative to the exempt group (

12 70 y, an additional 10% is offered by JUHI (copayment, 20%; JUHI, 80%).

13 for commercial plans not requiring a patient copayment (32.4%) compared with Medicare plans (19.3%; P

14 ion to appointment (63%), and elimination of copayment (59%).

15 group and 137 minutes for the group with no copayment (95 percent confidence interval for the differ

16 nce at the cooperatives, physicians advocate copayment, a stricter triage system, and a larger role f

17 in a low-copay or medium-copay tier and mean copayments across patient incomes.

18 Eliminating drug copayments after MI provides consistent benefits to pati

19 nd is associated with increased prescription copayment amount and black race.

20 surance type, black race/ethnicity, and drug copayment amount.

21 Copayment amounts varied by plan type, with more sacubit

22 Fixed patient copayment and coinsurance policies have negative effects

23 We sought to evaluate the consequences of copayment and coinsurance policies on the initiation of

24 nt association between the requirement for a copayment and delays in seeking treatment.

25 Approximately 17% of patients with higher copayments and 10% with lower copayments discontinued TK

26 ase management and benefits redesign (waived copayments and free transportation for any cancer care r

27 ter myocardial infarction, those with higher copayments and greater out-of-pocket medication costs we

28 rior authorization (PA) burden, prescription copayment, and utilization of sacubitril/valsartan by in

29 all medical care included insurance payment, copayments, and deductibles for 2 years after diagnosis

30 ured patients who pay only prescription drug copayments appear to be insulated from increases in drug

31 Patients with higher copayments are more likely to discontinue or be nonadher

32 Copayments are widely used to contain health spending bu

33 n and may be reduced by lower drug costs and copayments, as well as increased follow-up care with pre

34 imal medication use, but the extent to which copayment assistance interventions are used when availab

35 t medication costs were more likely to use a copayment assistance voucher, but some classes of patien

36 lasses of patients were less likely to use a copayment assistance voucher.

37 elihood of voucher use benefitted least from copayment assistance, and other interventions may be nee

38 Increases in coverage, copayment assistance, and use of expensive brand drugs m

39 lts at high cardiovascular risk, eliminating copayments (average, $35/mo) did not improve clinical ou

40 95% CI, -23.8 to -2.7), and a higher rate of copayment by patients (5.2%; 95% CI, 0.2 to 10.4) than i

41 The associated changes in copayments can substantially alter out-of-pocket spendin

42 In this cohort study of Colorado's insulin copayment cap among individuals with type 1 diabetes, th

43 ulated health insurance plans subject to the copayment cap legislation.

44 Overall, the copayment cap was associated with out-of-pocket spending

45 The impact of the first copayment change on likelihood of using services did not

46 yment increase among veterans subject to the copayment change with those who were not.

47 Those with a higher initial copayment cost had lower adherence rates (beta = -0.06/d

48 o provide patients with vouchers that offset copayment costs when filling P2Y(12) inhibitors in the 1

49 d, rejected, or abandoned), payer types, and copayment costs.

50 ation adherence that, in part, is related to copayment costs.

51 tions for drugs with vs without manufacturer copayment coupons in California vs surrounding states in

52 The elimination of copayments did not increase total spending ($66,008 for

53 ysis was used to estimate the association of copayment differences across tiers with market share amo

54 I, -0.058 to 0.148 percentage points]) or of copayment differences between tiers (0.001 percentage po

55 ts with higher copayments and 10% with lower copayments discontinued TKIs during the first 180 days f

56 JUHI copayment discount policy increases oral health service

57 rent to statins was 0.72 versus 0.69 for the copayment elimination versus usual copayment groups, res

58 te of the primary outcome was not reduced by copayment elimination, (521 versus 533 events, incidence

59 Veterans who remained copayment exempt formed a natural control group (no copa

60 h pathology reports, hospital discharges and copayment exemptions and matched with up to five referen

61 databases (i.e., hospital discharge records, copayment exemptions registry, pharmacy claims and speci

62 2 patients whose health insurance required a copayment for emergency department care (range, $25 to $

63 herence through insurance schemes that waive copayment for long-term medications.

64 mbers of an HMO, the introduction of a small copayment for the use of the emergency department was as

65 copayment group included veterans subject to copayments for all drugs with no annual cap.

66 or vascular disease and reduced clopidogrel copayments for all patients prescribed this drug.

67 n enrollees in Medicare plans that increased copayments for ambulatory care and enrollees in matched

68 When copayments for ambulatory care are increased, elderly pa

69 The effects of increases in copayments for ambulatory care were magnified among enro

70 In plans that increased copayments for ambulatory care, mean copayments nearly d

71 ate Medicare Part B expenditures and patient copayments for anti-VEGF agents with increasing reimburs

72 care costs for patients and deductibles and copayments for caregivers.

73 ssociation was driven by countries requiring copayments for drugs in the public health sector.

74 Veterans subject to copayments for drugs only if indicated for a non-service

75 The elimination of copayments for drugs prescribed after myocardial infarct

76 The requirement of copayments for emergency care is thought to control cost

77 n this HMO, the requirement of modest, fixed copayments for emergency services did not lead to delays

78 rs was $1.34 million lower and the amount of copayments for employees was $0.12 million higher than i

79 This study tested whether eliminating copayments for high-value medications among low-income o

80 nterventions in Alberta, Canada: eliminating copayments for high-value preventive medications and a s

81 Monthly copayments for imatinib averaged $108; median copayments

82 0.85 to 0.92]), elimination of prescription copayments for low-income groups (OR, 0.37 [CI, 0.32 to

83 ee-tier formulary and increased all enrollee copayments for medications.

84 ization (HMO) who were subject to increasing copayments for mental health visits (state government em

85 lowest income paid slightly lower mean (SD) copayments for office visits to a TPN physician than the

86 ge self-insured employer that reduced statin copayments for patients with diabetes or vascular diseas

87 Reducing copayments for post-myocardial infarction secondary prev

88 In control plans, mean copayments for primary care and specialty care remained

89 Lowering copayments for statins and clopidogrel was associated wi

90 a future study on how eliminating Mutuelles copayments for the poorest will improve their healthcare

91 to a three-tier formulary, changing only the copayments for tier-3 drugs.

92 epartment of Veterans Affairs (VA) increased copayments from $2 to $7 per 30-day drug supply of each

93 fidence interval, 2.29 to 4.03) and the some copayment group (odds ratio, 1.85; 95% confidence interv

94 od were significantly higher in both the all copayment group (odds ratio, 3.04; 95% confidence interv

95 age, sex, and race, was 135 minutes for the copayment group and 137 minutes for the group with no co

96 The all copayment group included veterans subject to copayments

97 93 was 14.6 percentage points greater in the copayment group than in either control group (P<0.001 fo

98 This copayment group was compared with two randomly selected

99 nt exempt formed a natural control group (no copayment group).

100 ent groups (all copayment group, 24.6%; some copayment group, 24.1%) as the exempt group (11.7%).

101 twice the rate in both copayment groups (all copayment group, 24.6%; some copayment group, 24.1%) as

102 o suggestion of excess adverse events in the copayment group, such as increases in mortality or in th

103 d for age, sex, and area of residence to the copayment group.

104 840 for out-of-pocket costs made up the some copayment group.

105 ased significantly at twice the rate in both copayment groups (all copayment group, 24.6%; some copay

106 9 for the copayment elimination versus usual copayment groups, respectively (mean difference, 0.03 [9

107 We aimed to assess if copayments in the public sector promoted the development

108 The copayment increase adversely affected lipid-lowering med

109 erence during the 24 months before and after copayment increase among veterans subject to the copayme

110 We examined the impact of the copayment increase on lipid-lowering medication adherenc

111 A subsequent copayment increase to $30/visit resulted in no significa

112 Adherence declined in all 3 groups after the copayment increase.

113 ormulary and implemented an across-the-board copayment increase.

114 The copayment increases associated with 3-tier formulary imp

115 were treated at hospitals randomized to the copayment intervention.

116 ian (PCP) for routine care, PCP office visit copayment is $10 (otherwise, PCP office visit copayment

117 opayment is $10 (otherwise, PCP office visit copayment is $35 as for specialist visit); and (2) annua

118 Vaccine copayment is an additional $0.20.

119 ventive intervention when a relatively small copayment is applied.

120 e cardiovascular events, compared with usual copayment, is reported here.

121 ription drug coverage without deductibles or copayments lived an average of 8.56 quality-adjusted lif

122 idential area, clinical characteristics, and copayment, low SEP was associated with statin nonadheren

123 750,000, or > $750,000), insurance type, and copayments (< $10, $10 to $20, or > $20) with adherence

124 However, requiring copayments may lead to adverse outcomes if patients dela

125 creased copayments for ambulatory care, mean copayments nearly doubled for both primary care ($7.38 t

126 comes before and after the introduction of a copayment of $25 to $35 for using the emergency departme

127 mammography, which we defined as requiring a copayment of more than $10 or coinsurance of more than 1

128 m 14 June to 3 October 2021, 80% (12/15) had copayments of $0-$35 and 27% (4/15) required prior autho

129 Prescriptions with copayments of $40 to $50 and prescriptions costing more

130 use of coupons, vouchers, and other types of copayment "offsets" that reduce patients' out-of-pocket

131 rst intervention, which waived the usual 30% copayment on 15 medication classes commonly used to redu

132 We studied the effect of a copayment on emergency department use in a group-model h

133 pact of reductions in statin and clopidogrel copayments on cardiovascular resource utilization, major

134 elation was driven by countries that require copayments on drugs in the public sector.

135 health benefits must consider the impact of copayments on those with the greatest need for treatment

136 tions include policy interventions to reduce copayments or improve prescription drug coverage, system

137 s evaluated the effect of reduced medication copayments or improved prescription drug coverage.

138 In Japan, a 30% copayment (out of pocket) by the user and a 70% contribu

139 , to be abandoned than prescriptions with no copayment (P < 0.001 for both comparisons).

140 r of sacubitril/valsartan prescriptions, and copayments per insurance plan type.

141 as measured as the patient's coinsurance and copayments per week of therapy, and as the proportion of

142 In the year after the rise in copayments, plans that increased cost sharing had 19.8 f

143 criptions with low copayments than Medicare, copayment policies may be more influential on sacubitril

144 reduced, from 55.8% to 50.5%, under a fixed copayment policy (-5.4% points; 95% CI, -6.4% to -4.4%)

145 After adjusting for copayments, poverty status, and comorbidities, the assoc

146 lan simultaneously moved from a 1-tier (same copayment required for all drugs) to a 3-tier formulary

147 ciation between the presence or absence of a copayment requirement and the time to arrival at the hos

148 Since some patients may be unaware of their copayment requirement, we performed a subgroup analysis

149 range, $25 to $100) and 729 patients with no copayment requirement.

150 to 2011 and assessed the association between copayment requirements for imatinib and TKI adherence.

151 the importance of out-of-pocket spending and copayment requirements for public sector drugs on the le

152 High copayment requirements, lack of a usual source of care,

153 Copayments restricted access regardless of clinical need

154 In this staff-model HMO, modest visit copayments significantly reduced initial access to menta

155 it to the emergency department with the same copayment status - that is, of patients who were likely

156 to spend with patients, covered benefits and copayment structure, and utilization management practice

157 ercial plans had more prescriptions with low copayments than Medicare, copayment policies may be more

158 n the rates among users with plans requiring copayments, the effect on the overall prevalence of smok

159 higher deductibles and a movement away from copayments to coinsurance, have increased patient out-of

160 Diabetic retinopathy screening with a small copayment versus free access in a publicly funded family

161 ability to detect any adverse effects of the copayment was limited, there was no suggestion of excess

162 Institution of $20/visit copayments was associated with a 16% decrease in likelih

163 Lowering copayments was associated with significant reductions in

164 opayments for imatinib averaged $108; median copayments were $30 (range, $0 to $4,792).

165 Similarly, patients with higher copayments were 42% more likely to be nonadherent (aRR,

166 Relatively small copayments were associated with significantly lower mamm

167 zation (sum of deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments) were identified using a generalized linear m