EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Seniors Wait on Care, Grow Sicker as Copays Rise
Higher Medicare copays result in more elderly hospitalized, study says
LOS ANGELES -- Higher Medicare copays, sometimes just a few dollars more, led to fewer doctors visits and to more and longer hospital stays, a large new study reveals.
"Patients may defer needed care and may wind up with a serious health event that might put them in the hospital. That's not good for the patients, not good for society, not good for anybody," said Dr. Tim Carey, who heads the University of North Carolina's Sheps Center for Health Services Research. (AFP/File/Pascal Pavani) With health care costs skyrocketing, many public and private insurers have required patients to pay more out-of-pocket when they seek care. The new study confirms what many policymakers had feared: cost-shifting moves can backfire.
"Patients may defer needed care and may wind up with a serious health event that might put them in the hospital. That's not good for the patients, not good for society, not good for anybody," said Dr. Tim Carey, who heads the University of North Carolina's Sheps Center for Health Services Research.
Carey had no role in the research, published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine.
The study included nearly 900,000 seniors in 36 Medicare managed-care plans from 2001 to 2006. During that period, half of the plans raised copays for visits to doctors and specialists. Researchers compared medical use patterns in those plans with use in similar Medicare managed-care plans that kept copays the same. Copays for prescription drugs remained unchanged in all plans.
Among plans that increased patient cost-sharing, the average copay for a doctor visit roughly doubled, from $7.38 to $14.38. The copay to see a specialist jumped from $12.66 to $22.05. By contrast, the average copay for unchanged plans was $8.33 to see a doctor and $11.38 to see a specialist.
For every 100 people enrolled in plans that raised copays, there were 20 fewer doctor visits, 2 additional hospital admissions and 13 more days spent in the hospital in the year after the increase compared to those in plans whose copays did not change, researchers found.
The trend was most pronounced among blacks, people living in lower-income neighborhoods and those with chronic illnesses such as diabetes, high blood pressure or heart disease.
The results suggest that raising copays to contain costs is counterproductive, said Dr. Amal Trivedi, assistant professor of community health at Brown University, who led the study. Not only may it lead to higher health care spending, but patients also suffer, he said.
"Outpatient care for elderly adults, particularly those with chronic diseases, is very valuable and may not be something you want to discourage by having a large copayment," Trivedi said.
The study was funded by grants from Pfizer Inc. and the federal government.
The findings echo previous studies on increased patient cost-sharing. When California's Medicaid program introduced a $1 copay in 1972, it led to an 8 percent decline in doctor visits and a 17 percent increase in hospital days.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

28 Comments so far
Show AllThese findings will fall in the memory hole, as servant to the master, Obama, refers to it as "waste" and searches for more "waste" cutting to preserve the interests & lifestyle of the class he serves.
The article does not mention that these "managed care" plans would not exist if the government did not subsidize them.
But "the government" isn't subsidising anything--*WE* are. That's worse.
It's a well known fact, at least to ordinary (not the rich ones in high places) seniors, that we've become the dregs at the bottom of the barrel, and first in line to suffer government cuts to the budget. Education shares that space with us. When enough voices of protest in our behalf can be silenced, the dregs will simply be discarded altogether.
Ironically enough, it is the Republicans who now claim the mantle of "saving Medicare" because Obama's medicare cuts were framed as "waste" and all the Democrats bought into the lie. I saw Brown crowing about "saving Medicare" during his victory speech. How surreal is that? However, Seniors knew the score and they are the most reliable voting bloc. The Democrats have really defined themselves as elitists and antagonist towards anyone who isn't in their own social strata.
There will be no Progressive movement as long as Progressives continues to rally around the lies of a political party who doesn't share our interests and have demonstrated repeatedly that they represent interests opposed to ours.
The Right may not carry the banner either but they recognize political opportunity.
Follow the trajectory: Health Care is an Extraction Industry, no different than the creatures who destroy mountain tops. The object of the game is to extract EVERYTHING and when it's gone it's gone. Cut Cut Cut EVERYTHING and RAISE the costs till the victims have no money to pay then let them die. America kills 45000 people this way every year and the number rises each year, like the cost of food. Notice the targets: Black People, Poor People, and folks with chronic conditions. This is the cutting edge of Demographic Collapse and the start of Die Back in the US.
RULE: First you do the "low hanging fruit" - then you ratchet up the food chain.
All those good Americans who were content to throw others under the bus as long as they "had their piece" are about to find their names prominently featured on the Menu of our little Cannibalistic Blood Feast for the richfilth animals.
AND THE APOLOGISTS FOR THIS FILTH, up to the WH have made themselves, by their words and actions, our ENEMIES. What do you call folks who think they can get rich by murdering you and your children?
Exactly, luckylefty: "Health Care is an Extraction Industy..."
When the articles mentions COST-SHIFTING, that's what they call extracting more money from people dependent upon a system that was created to provide healthcare and shifting it to stock options and golden parachutes.
>>>>>America kills 45000 people this way every year and the number rises each year, like the cost of food. Notice the targets: Black People, Poor People, and folks with chronic conditions. This is the cutting edge of Demographic Collapse and the start of Die Back in the US.
This is Darwinism taken to its most evil extreme by the Powers That Be. Their agenda: cull the least productive from society to reduce population numbers while at the same time extract every last penny from them before they're exterminated. Survival of the fittest has morphed into survival of the richest.
In my opinion, it should be strongly noted that health insurance premiums and co-pays have increased dramatically since the sited study(2001 - 2006). The senior citizens I know, who have Medicare but also have supplementary health insurance to cover the costs Medicare does not, have seen an average 46% increase in their premiums and 100% increase in their co-pays. Their prescription drug costs and co-pays have also increased within that same range(46 - 100%) but also with substantial changes in prescription drugs covered by their Medicare Part D plans.
How can Social Security tell recipients they won't see a COLA(cost of living adjustment) this year as they(the government) determined there to be no inflation?
For those who are presently working, and still have employer provided health insurance and prescription drug coverage, I am relatively certain they too have found, or will soon find, their contribution costs, co-pays and restrictions have increased substantially also.
For senior citizens who rely solely or heavily on their Social Security and Medicare benefits, these outrageous increases in costs this year(2010) alone will devastate their lives and the lives of their families(if they have any).
Things have changed since the sited study(2001 - 2006). They've changed a lot ... and not for the better. Senior citizens had to make incredible adjustments in their lives during those years. Now, and since that study ... most of them have nowhere to adjust to. They've already reduced their purchases of food. They've already adjusted their thermostats ... higher for less air conditioning and lower for less heating. Whatever they've saved by denying themselves food and comfort has easily been paid out to insurance and drug companies.
Wait and see what happens when they reach the prescription drug 'donut hole'. The 'donut hole' is going to be reached a lot quicker and for greater numbers of senior citizens since the drug costs have increased so much. If they want their drugs they're going to have to pay full price for them. This is quite a windfall for the drug companies. What family would allow a family member to go without their necessary prescription drugs? So, the drug companies will get their money one way or another indirectly applying further downward pressure on already debt stressed working class America.
All citizens should be ashamed and alarmed. Someday soon this will be you! Don't think so? Think your future is so secure? Want to gamble? It's a crap shoot and the house always wins!
Yes, and isn't it interesting how Medicare Part D, the flexible mortgage debacle and many auto loans are similar scams? Scams to take advantage of poor people?
Or to use poor people as the excuse for another scam. The rationale is that it helps poor people, but the money increasing goes into the pockets of those who can afford lobbyists.
"How can Social Security tell recipients they won't see a COLA(cost of living adjustment) this year as they(the government) determined there to be no inflation?"
Apparently there was only a cost of living increase for congress. They gave themselves a 5% COLA this year.
That COLA SS recipients won't see this year - we won't be seeing it next year either. But you can be the congress will get theirs both years.
Yeah, I have heard that. How in Gawd's name can they say there won't be any cost of living for a year that hasn't even happened yet?
I get more cynical by the day. This bought and paid for guvment is now so transparently corrupt, yet "Dancing with the Stars" is more important to Joe/Jane Sixpack and nothing happens. I am beginning to believe that no matter what these scuzzbrushes do to us, they will have to worry about absolutely nothing. Change the channel Ma!!! American Idol is commin on next!!!
Many posters pointed the way before the presidential election remember, now which party supports single-payer?...is it the Democrats?...No...Is it the Republicans?...No...Now what was the name of the party that is for single payer universal healthcare? It must have slipped my mind...
Anyway wouldn't it make sense to vote for them instead of the two parties that are openly against setting up what Obama called the best system?, with a proven track record all over the world?
Yesterday I mailed off my letter declining Part B, Medicare.
I've been laid off, and won't be able to afford the cost after my unemployment ends. A friend checked into local and state resources that I might access, but even at that, it's food and shelter versus medical care insurance. I was slightly mollified in this awful decision, by the fact that I recently sought medical care at the local clinic that provides care for baseline Medicare people. Almost everyone who can afford it, buys something else in addition to Medicare Part B, and the reams of paper spewing forth prices and options are astounding. My mailbox is full of them. On the net, I scroll endlessly down, looking at all the different plans I can buy.
Just one catch. You gotta be able to buy in, otherwise, Congressman Grayson had it almost right, it's not Drop Dead Quickly, because your suffering is irrelevant, it's very much,
Drop Dead Quietly.
Almost everyone who can afford it, buys something else in addition to Medicare Part B, and the reams of paper spewing forth prices and options are astounding. My mailbox is full of them. On the net, I scroll endlessly down, looking at all the different plans I can buy.
---------------------------
That should tell you whom those plans *really* benefit--it ain't the citizen! The people who buy them are letting themselves be suckered, unless they're not basically healthy. I have A&B only, and that's been sufficient for me so far.
I'd think A&B would be sufficient for most people if they do a basic level of bod maintenance (healthy vegetarian diet, daily exercise, minimal vices). The pills I take for the few chronic problems I have run me on the order of $40/month, $30 of which is for the anti-oxidant (r-ALA) that helps keep the Type 2 diabetes at bay.
You say you won't be able to afford the B premium after your unemployment runs out. Don't you get a big enough ss pension to cover the $95?
I'm 67 years old. I worked harder than any senator. These congresspeople have balls. They are freezing Medicare to buy more bombs. It was I and people like me who generated all this wealth. I want my SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and a single payer health care system.
Insurance companies are rich because of me and people like me. They use the money they took from me to bribe legislators to vote against my best interest.
Their profits increase as health care for their policy holders degenerates. And make no mistake, they are some greedy, heartless, cruel bastards.
Oops!
Sorry, meant to add, the local clinic said,
No one will see you.
That's when I decided that being at the bottom of the medicare food chain was probably not going to work out well for me.
So for medical care I've learned there are 3 places:
the ER, a for profit walk in clinic, and in my area, a not for profit.
I had been under the impression that everyone got Medicare, and profit was finally out of the picture.
I was wrong. Medicare needs to be fixed. No buy in cost, but instead a revenue stream from general taxes and the middle man out. Single payer absolutely
Quasimuddled: "Medicare needs to be fixed." Yes it does. That's one reason I still prefer to say "single payer" instead of Medicare for All, because there are a lot of problems with Medicare and Republicans are frenzied by the mere mention. There is much that needs changed, starting with the inanity of not letting Medicare negotiate drug prices.
Raising the co-pays on those who need health care the most is shifting the cost burden in exactly the WRONG direction. As an American living in Canada I have often asked Canadians complaining of long waits in walk-in clinics because of people coming to see a doctor for every hang nail and pimple (a slight exaggeration here) why they don't just add a $15 co-pay for an office visit. It could be waived for the poor and elderly, but it would cut back on spurious doctor visits, unclogging the system a little. The usual response I get is something like, "that would make us too much like the American system". I understand the sentiment. But isn't the "healthiest" society one that places MORE (not less) of the responsibility on those who can afford it rather than on those who can't? Whatever happened to "to whom much has been given, much shall be required"? - or don't the 'good Christians' in America follow their own Teacher anymore? (that's a rhetorical question).
The issues most Canadians have with a "user fee" such as 15 dollars are
1>It would discourage people from Visiting the Doctor when needed in order to save 15 dollars.
Those that can not afford it will not go. The 15 dollar fee will not really discourage those that can afford it. If you increase the fee to where it truly a deterrent towards frivulous visits, then it becomes a "what am I paying taxes for then" arguement.
2>The billing for visits increases the administration costs.
One advantage of the Canadian system is the monies saved in overhead wherein Doctors , Clinics and Hospitals do not need massive billing departments that you have in a for profit system. All billing is done to the Government. If you introduce even a small user fee you then create the need for more systems to collect the bills, sent out notices that a fee not paid along with the overhead of "doing the books". This means hiring more staff. More Staff costs more money.
Who qualifies as poor? How is it tracked and so on.
Are you really saving money?
Ok so a few questions about single payer system.
1) who pays for it?
2) who sets the standard of care?
3) who regulates it?
4) who runs it?
5) who decides what Dr. is right for me?
6) who approves the next level of care should I need or not need it?
8) Are all Dr's to follow only one set of standards or do they get to choose what is best for the patient?
Feel free to add anything I missed, basically why should the country sign off on a single payer system over the option of choosing for yourself who/what/when/where/why/how?
You're new around here. You'll have to do your own homework if you really want to consider the pros and cons of single payer. I suggest Physicians for a National Health Program at pnhp dot org. You have a misconception that it would take away your right to choose your doctor and care. Many people already have those restriction under our system today.
1) who pays for it?
We do, same as now, only via federal taxation instead of the haphazard, expensive plethora of for-profit insurance schemes used now.
2) who sets the standard of care?
The medical community, same as (nominally) now.
3) who regulates it?
The same groups as (nominally) now
4) who runs it?
On the technical side, the medical community, same as (nominally) now.
On the paperwork side, the Social Security Administration probably, same as with Medicare now.
5) who decides what Dr. is right for me?
You do, same as (nominally) now.
6) who approves the next level of care should I need or not need it?
Your primary-care doc, same as (nominally) now.
8) Are all Dr's to follow only one set of standards or do they get to choose what is best for the patient?
Same as (nominally) now: the individual doc would have full medical authority, but could be censured by the medical society if he doesn't follow accepted practice and the patient suffers, or could be prosecuted if he actually does something criminal.
(I edited to add a parenthetical "nominally" to reflect the reality that now, unelected and unaccountable clerks in for-profit insurance companies make those determinations.)
A single payer system - like Medicare? Works super for me!
For the powers that be "waste" refers to anyone, whether working, retired or unemployed, who requires any amount of public support, such that, there's less in the treasury for bailouts to banksters and tax reductions for corporations and the super-rich. And as mentioned by other posters the purpose of these co-pay increases is to waste (as in best they drop dead) those of us who receive public support and no matter that said support is the return on one's lifelong payroll deductions. Obama's goal (with his budget cuts) is to sell the American people on means tests for seniors, with no public funds forthcoming to individual seniors until they are reduced to poverty status, whereupon, it'll be up to one's private insurance company's death panel as to who lives and who dies, Our government's explanation for this policy will be something like "Yes, it's true, but we had no choice, what with all these terrorist threats. After all national security comes first". Sound familiar? What's the answer? That we rise up en masse and change the world, with we being seniors, the more than 50 percent of Americans who are either unemployed, &/or in danger of foreclosure or already foreclosed upon, &/or panic-stricken for fear of losing their jobs, &/or unable to afford an education because of tuition increases, &/or living in rural areas where the only work available is in prisons or signing up with the military, not to mention the millions of folks in our inner cities, scorned, beaten-down, discarded and left on their own. Said uprising can begin on commondreams. How? We spread the word, that's how
I am surprised so few comments have been made on this subject. Is anybody out there?
How can we bring about a real movement to change the status quo and quid pro quo with healthcare ... and the environment ... and climate change ... and food ... and water ... and housing ... and energy ... and jobs ... and banking ... and consumer protection ... and war ... and education ... and corporate takeover of our government ... and corporate takeover of our military ... and political corruption ... etc ... when in an anonymous environment such as this readers hesitate to respond or perhaps aren't reading.
A real movement to change requires an actual physical presence without anonymity. A real movement to change requires conviction and perseverance.
How can the conservatives coalesce? Why can't progressives? How can the neo-cons takeover our government and mainstream media? Why can't progressives?
In my opinion, conservatives, neo-cons, teabaggers, libertarians are all brought together under the Republican umbrella ... group-think.
The Democratic party constantly, persistantly distances itself from liberals, radical liberals, democratic socialists, environmentalists, progressives, etc... The Democratic party ought to smarten up and fight fire with fire. Become an inclusive party. There is strength in numbers. Become as resolute about truth, justice, peace, freedom, and true democracy as the right-wing is about their perverted, twisted agendas.
If there can't be a real movement of change ignited over healthcare, if people out there can't see what is truly taking place with healthcare there is truly no reason to fight for anyother justice. Simply put ... if you are too sick, too afraid or dead you aren't going to do anything, so then, game over and they've won.