ライフサイエンスコーパス: copayment

1 selected control groups not affected by the copayment.

2 patients who were likely to know about their copayment.

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

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

5 ationing achieved through the use of patient copayments.

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

7 dered when making decisions about increasing copayments.

8 =80%) declined significantly more in the all copayment (-19.2%) and some copayment (-19.3%) groups re

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

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

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

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

13 Eliminating drug copayments after MI provides consistent benefits to pati

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

15 Fixed patient copayment and coinsurance policies have negative effects

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

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

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

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

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

21 Copayments are widely used to contain health spending bu

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

23 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

32 2 patients whose health insurance required a copayment for emergency department care (range, $25 to $

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

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

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

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

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

38 When copayments for ambulatory care are increased, elderly pa

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

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

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

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

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

44 The elimination of copayments for drugs prescribed after myocardial infarct

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

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

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

48 Monthly copayments for imatinib averaged $108; median copayments

49 0.85 to 0.92]), elimination of prescription copayments for low-income groups (OR, 0.37 [CI, 0.32 to

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

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

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

53 Reducing copayments for post-myocardial infarction secondary prev

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

55 Lowering copayments for statins and clopidogrel was associated wi

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

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

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

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

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

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

62 The all copayment group included veterans subject to copayments

63 93 was 14.6 percentage points greater in the copayment group than in either control group (P<0.001 fo

64 This copayment group was compared with two randomly selected

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

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

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

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

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

70 840 for out-of-pocket costs made up the some copayment group.

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

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

73 The copayment increase adversely affected lipid-lowering med

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

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

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

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

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

79 The copayment increases associated with 3-tier formulary imp

80 Vaccine copayment is an additional $0.20.

81 ventive intervention when a relatively small copayment is applied.

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

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

84 750,000, or > $750,000), insurance type, and copayments (< $10, $10 to $20, or > $20) with adherence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

108 Copayments restricted access regardless of clinical need

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

116 Lowering copayments was associated with significant reductions in

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

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

119 Relatively small copayments were associated with significantly lower mamm