Cargando…

Potential impact of co-payment at point of care to influence emergency department utilization

Background. Many proponents for healthcare reform suggest increased cost-sharing by patients as a method to reduce overall expenditures. Prior studies on the effects of co-payments for ED visits have generally not been directed toward understanding patient attitudes/behavior at point of care. Object...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baum, Zachary, Simmons, Michael R., Guardiola, Jose H., Smith, Cynthia, Carrasco, Lynn, Ha, Joann, Richman, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PeerJ Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4727971/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26819839
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1544
_version_ 1782412049300586496
author Baum, Zachary
Simmons, Michael R.
Guardiola, Jose H.
Smith, Cynthia
Carrasco, Lynn
Ha, Joann
Richman, Peter
author_facet Baum, Zachary
Simmons, Michael R.
Guardiola, Jose H.
Smith, Cynthia
Carrasco, Lynn
Ha, Joann
Richman, Peter
author_sort Baum, Zachary
collection PubMed
description Background. Many proponents for healthcare reform suggest increased cost-sharing by patients as a method to reduce overall expenditures. Prior studies on the effects of co-payments for ED visits have generally not been directed toward understanding patient attitudes/behavior at point of care. Objectives. We conducted a survey at point of care to test our hypothesis that a significant number of patients with urgent chief complaints might have avoided the ED if asked to provide a co-payment. Methods. Cross-sectional study design. Stable, oriented, consenting patients at an inner-city, academic ED were consecutively enrolled at hours in which trained research associates were available to assist with data collection. Enrolled patients completed a written survey providing demographic/chief complaint information, and then were asked whether 13 interval amounts of co-payment ranging from 0 to >500 would have impacted their decision to visit the ED. Categorical data are presented as frequency of occurrence and analyzed by chi-square; continuous data presented as means ± standard deviation, analyzed by t-tests. ORs and 95% confidence intervals provided. Primary outcome parameter was the % of patients who would have avoided the ED if asked to pay any co-payment for several urgent chief complaints: chest pain, SOB, and abdominal pain. Results. A total of 581 patients were enrolled; 63.1% female, mean age 42.4 ± 15.1 years, 65% Hispanic, 71.2% income less than 20,000, 28.6% less than high school graduate, 81.3% had primary care physician, 57.6% had 2 or more ED visits/past year. Overall, 30.2% of patients chose 0 as the maximum they would have been willing to pay if it was required to be seen in the ED. 16/58 (28%; 95% CI [18–40%]) of chest pain patients, 9/43 (20.9%; 95% CI [11–35%]) of SOB patients, and 24/127 (26.8%; 95% CI [13–27%]) of abdominal pain patients would have been unwilling to pay a co-pay. Patients with income >20,000 were more willing to pay a co-payment (OR = 2.55; 95% CI [1.59–4.10]). No significant relationship was identified between willingness to pay for: gender, race, education, established primary care provider, and frequency of ED visits. Conclusion. Overall, 30.2% of our patients would not have accepted a co-pay in order to be seen, including more than 20% of the patients with chest pain, shortness of breath, and abdominal pain respectively.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4727971
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47279712016-01-27 Potential impact of co-payment at point of care to influence emergency department utilization Baum, Zachary Simmons, Michael R. Guardiola, Jose H. Smith, Cynthia Carrasco, Lynn Ha, Joann Richman, Peter PeerJ Emergency and Critical Care Background. Many proponents for healthcare reform suggest increased cost-sharing by patients as a method to reduce overall expenditures. Prior studies on the effects of co-payments for ED visits have generally not been directed toward understanding patient attitudes/behavior at point of care. Objectives. We conducted a survey at point of care to test our hypothesis that a significant number of patients with urgent chief complaints might have avoided the ED if asked to provide a co-payment. Methods. Cross-sectional study design. Stable, oriented, consenting patients at an inner-city, academic ED were consecutively enrolled at hours in which trained research associates were available to assist with data collection. Enrolled patients completed a written survey providing demographic/chief complaint information, and then were asked whether 13 interval amounts of co-payment ranging from 0 to >500 would have impacted their decision to visit the ED. Categorical data are presented as frequency of occurrence and analyzed by chi-square; continuous data presented as means ± standard deviation, analyzed by t-tests. ORs and 95% confidence intervals provided. Primary outcome parameter was the % of patients who would have avoided the ED if asked to pay any co-payment for several urgent chief complaints: chest pain, SOB, and abdominal pain. Results. A total of 581 patients were enrolled; 63.1% female, mean age 42.4 ± 15.1 years, 65% Hispanic, 71.2% income less than 20,000, 28.6% less than high school graduate, 81.3% had primary care physician, 57.6% had 2 or more ED visits/past year. Overall, 30.2% of patients chose 0 as the maximum they would have been willing to pay if it was required to be seen in the ED. 16/58 (28%; 95% CI [18–40%]) of chest pain patients, 9/43 (20.9%; 95% CI [11–35%]) of SOB patients, and 24/127 (26.8%; 95% CI [13–27%]) of abdominal pain patients would have been unwilling to pay a co-pay. Patients with income >20,000 were more willing to pay a co-payment (OR = 2.55; 95% CI [1.59–4.10]). No significant relationship was identified between willingness to pay for: gender, race, education, established primary care provider, and frequency of ED visits. Conclusion. Overall, 30.2% of our patients would not have accepted a co-pay in order to be seen, including more than 20% of the patients with chest pain, shortness of breath, and abdominal pain respectively. PeerJ Inc. 2016-01-21 /pmc/articles/PMC4727971/ /pubmed/26819839 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1544 Text en ©2016 Baum et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
spellingShingle Emergency and Critical Care
Baum, Zachary
Simmons, Michael R.
Guardiola, Jose H.
Smith, Cynthia
Carrasco, Lynn
Ha, Joann
Richman, Peter
Potential impact of co-payment at point of care to influence emergency department utilization
title Potential impact of co-payment at point of care to influence emergency department utilization
title_full Potential impact of co-payment at point of care to influence emergency department utilization
title_fullStr Potential impact of co-payment at point of care to influence emergency department utilization
title_full_unstemmed Potential impact of co-payment at point of care to influence emergency department utilization
title_short Potential impact of co-payment at point of care to influence emergency department utilization
title_sort potential impact of co-payment at point of care to influence emergency department utilization
topic Emergency and Critical Care
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4727971/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26819839
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1544
work_keys_str_mv AT baumzachary potentialimpactofcopaymentatpointofcaretoinfluenceemergencydepartmentutilization
AT simmonsmichaelr potentialimpactofcopaymentatpointofcaretoinfluenceemergencydepartmentutilization
AT guardiolajoseh potentialimpactofcopaymentatpointofcaretoinfluenceemergencydepartmentutilization
AT smithcynthia potentialimpactofcopaymentatpointofcaretoinfluenceemergencydepartmentutilization
AT carrascolynn potentialimpactofcopaymentatpointofcaretoinfluenceemergencydepartmentutilization
AT hajoann potentialimpactofcopaymentatpointofcaretoinfluenceemergencydepartmentutilization
AT richmanpeter potentialimpactofcopaymentatpointofcaretoinfluenceemergencydepartmentutilization