Why Cost Sharing Alone Will Not Fix Health Care Costs

Anna D. Sinaiko,Benjamin D. Sommers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.7115

2024-03-05

JAMA Internal Medicine

Abstract:This Viewpoint describes issues with cost sharing for health care costs and suggests improvements to current cost sharing systems.

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Linking Cost Sharing to Value: An Unrivaled Yet Unrealized Public Health Opportunity

R. Scott Braithwaite,Allison B. Rosen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-146-8-200704170-00011

IF: 39.2

2007-04-17

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:As the financial burden of cost sharing continues to rise, patients increasingly avoid necessary care, thereby contributing to the high morbidity and mortality of the U.S. population compared with that of other developed countries. The rationale for cost sharing is often based on the moral hazard argument, which states that individuals may overuse care if they do not share in its costs. We evaluate this argument in detail, using it to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate settings for cost sharing. Cost sharing may be appropriate when health services are of low value (low ratio of benefits to costs), whereas it is inappropriate when health services are of high value (high ratio of benefits to costs). In practice, cost sharing is rarely linked to value, and therefore much of the cost sharing that currently occurs is inappropriate and harmful. Cost-effectiveness analysis is an objective method to estimate the value of health services and may be a way to systematically evaluate whether cost-sharing policies are appropriate. Systematic efforts to discourage inappropriate cost sharing may improve public health.

medicine, general & internal
Episode-Based Cost Sharing to Prospectively Guarantee Patients’ Out-of-Pocket Costs

Michal Horný,David M. Anderson,A. Mark Fendrick

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.8566

2024-03-11

JAMA Internal Medicine

Abstract:This Viewpoint proposes episode-based cost sharing as a way to prospectively guarantee out-of-pocket costs for patients while also preventing insurers from absorbing cost differentials created by unexpected complications of care.

medicine, general & internal
Cost sharing in managed care and the ethical question of business purpose

Robert C Hughes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2023.29.8.965

Abstract:For-profit managed care organizations face decisions about cost sharing that can involve a tradeoff between the interests of investors and the interests of patients. No successful business can ignore the interests of its investors, but moral philosophy points to ethical reasons for managed care organizations to make patients' health, rather than investors' profit, their primary goal. One reason is the ethical obligation of all businesses to avoid wrongful exploitation of vulnerable customers. An insurance company's cost-sharing policy can exploit customers either by collecting an unfairly large amount of money from them or by unfairly deterring them from making claims for resources they medically need. Another reason stems from the fact that managed care organizations' profits derive in part from the existence of artificial barriers to access to medicine, notably including patents. Putting a fence around a water well in the desert is legitimate only if doing so facilitates a financial arrangement that maximizes people's access to water they need. Likewise, patents and other artificial barriers to access to medically necessary drugs are legitimate only if they are used to help finance access to medical resources people need. For these reasons, managed care organizations should make cost-sharing decisions that maximize the sustainable availability of effective drugs to patients who need them. DISCLOSURES: The thoughts and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author only and are not the thoughts and opinions of any current or former employer of the author. Nor is this publication made by, on behalf of, or endorsed or approved by any current or former employer of the author.
Patient Cost-Sharing and Hospitalization Offsets in the Elderly

Amitabh Chandra,Jonathan Gruber,Robin McKnight

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.1.193

IF: 10.7

2010-03-01

American Economic Review

Abstract:In the Medicare program, increases in cost sharing by a supplemental insurer can exert financial externalities. We study a policy change that raised patient cost sharing for the supplemental insurer for retired public employees in California. We find that physician visits and prescription drug usage have elasticities that are similar to those of the RAND Health Insurance Experiment (HIE). Unlike the HIE, however, we find substantial “offset” effects in terms of increased hospital utilization. The savings from increased cost sharing accrue mostly to the supplemental insurer, while the costs of increased hospitalization accrue mostly to Medicare. (JEL G22, I12, I18, J14)

economics
The effects of patient cost sharing on inpatient utilization, cost, and outcome

Yuan Xu,Ning Li,Mingshan Lu,Elijah Dixon,Robert P. Myers,Rachel J. Jelley,Hude Quan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187096

IF: 3.7

2017-10-26

PLoS ONE

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Health insurance and provider payment reforms all over the world beg a key empirical question: what are the potential impacts of patient cost-sharing on health care utilization, cost and outcomes? The unique health insurance system and rich electronic medical record (EMR) data in China provides us a unique opportunity to study this topic.METHODS: Four years (2010 to 2014) of EMR data from one medical center in China were utilized, including 10,858 adult patients with liver diseases. We measured patient cost-sharing using actual reimbursement ratio (RR) which is allowed us to better capture financial incentive than using type of health insurance. A rigorous risk adjustment method was employed with both comorbidities and disease severity measures acting as risk adjustors. Associations between RR and health use, costs and outcome were analyzed by multivariate analyses.RESULTS: After risk adjustment, patients with more generous health insurance coverage (higher RR) were found to have longer hospital stay, higher total cost, higher medication cost, and higher ratio of medication to total cost, as well as higher number and likelihood that specific procedures were performed.CONCLUSION: Our study implied that patient cost-sharing affects health care services use and cost. This reflects how patients and physicians respond to financial incentives in the current healthcare system in China, and the responses could be a joint effect of both demand and supply side moral hazard. In order to contain cost and improve efficiency in the system, reforming provide payment and insurance scheme is urgently needed.

multidisciplinary sciences
High and Rising Health Care Costs. Part 4: Can Costs Be Controlled While Preserving Quality?

Thomas Bodenheimer,Alicia Fernandez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-143-1-200507050-00007

IF: 39.2

2005-07-05

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:Several interrelated strategies involving physician leadership and participation have been proposed to contain health care costs while preserving or improving quality. These include programs targeting the 10% of the population that incurs 70% of health care expenditures, disease management programs to prevent costly complications of chronic conditions, efforts to reduce medical errors, the strengthening of primary care practice, decision support tools to avoid inappropriate services, and improved diffusion of technology assessment. An example of a cost-reducing, quality-enhancing program is post-hospital nurse monitoring and intervention for patients at high risk for repeated hospitalization for congestive heart failure. Disease management programs that target groups with a chronic condition rather than focusing efforts on high-utilizing individuals may be effective in improving quality but may not reduce costs. Error reduction has great potential to improve quality while reducing costs, although the probable cost reduction is a small portion of national health care expenditures. Access to primary care has been shown to correlate with reduced hospital use while preserving quality. Inappropriate care and overuse of new technologies can be reduced through shared decision-making between well-informed physicians and patients. Physicians have a central role to play in fostering these quality-enhancing strategies that can help to slow the growth of health care expenditures.

medicine, general & internal
Reducing administrative costs in US health care: Assessing single payer and its alternatives

David Scheinker,Barak D Richman,Arnold Milstein,Kevin A Schulman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13649

Abstract:Objective: Excess administrative costs in the US health care system are routinely referenced as a justification for comprehensive reform. While there is agreement that these costs are too high, there is little understanding of what generates administrative costs and what policy options might mitigate them. Data sources: Literature review and national utilization and expenditure data. Study design: We developed a simulation model of physician billing and insurance-related (BIR) costs to estimate how certain policy reforms would generate savings. Our model is based on structural elements of the payment process in the United States and considers each provider's number of health plan contracts, the number of features in each health plan, the clinical and nonclinical processes required to submit a bill for payment, and the compliance costs associated with medical billing. Data extraction: For several types of visits, we estimated fixed and variable costs of the billing process. We used the model to estimate the BIR costs at a national level under a variety of policy scenarios, including variations of a single payer "Medicare-for-All" model that extends fee-for-service Medicare to the entire population and policy efforts to reduce administrative costs in a multi-payer model. We conducted sensitivity analyses of a wide variety of model parameters. Principal findings: Our model estimates that national BIR costs are reduced between 33% and 53% in Medicare-for-All style single-payer models and between 27% and 63% in various multi-payer models. Under a wide range of assumptions and sensitivity analyses, standardizing contracts generates larger savings with less variance than savings from single-payer strategies. Conclusion: Although moving toward a single-payer system will reduce BIR costs, certain reforms to payer-provider contracts could generate at least as many administrative cost savings without radically reforming the entire health system. BIR costs can be meaningfully reduced without abandoning a multi-payer system.
Inequities in Unexpected Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care in the United States

Alex Hoagland,Olivia Yu,Michal Horný

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2024.09.011

2024-09-19

Abstract:Introduction: Unexpected out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for preventive care reduce future uptake. Because adherence to service guidelines differs by patient populations, understanding the role of patient demographics and social determinants of health (SDOH) in the incidence and size of unexpected cost-sharing is necessary to address these disparities. This study examined the associations between patient demographics and cost-sharing for common preventive services. Methods: This cross-sectional study used a national sample of insurance claims for recommended preventive services provided to privately insured adult patients between 2017 and 2020. The relationships between patient demographics and OOP costs were adjusted for service type, insurance type, geographic location, and time trends using regression analysis. Analyses were conducted in 2024. Results: The sample included 1,736,063 unique preventive care encounters of 1,078,010 individuals. Among preventive encounters, 40.3% resulted in OOP costs. Lower-educated patients had 9.4% (OR=1.094; 95% CI=1.082, 1.106) higher odds of incurring OOP costs than patients with college degrees. Low-income patients (annual household income of $49,999 or less) had 10.7% (OR=0.893; 95% CI=0.880, 0.906) lower odds of incurring OOP costs than high-income patients. Conditional on incurring costs, lower educated patients paid $15.07 (95% CI= -$15.24, -$14.91) less than higher educated patients, and low-income patients paid $11.76 (95% CI=$11.58, $11.95) more than high-income patients. Significant differences across racial and ethnic groups were observed. Conclusions: The likelihood and size of OOP costs for preventive care varied considerably by patient demographics; this may contribute to inequitable access to high-value care.
Promoting cooperative federalism through state shared savings

Alan Weil

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0334

Abstract:The Affordable Care Act is transforming American federalism and creating strain between the states and the federal government. By expanding the scale of intergovernmental health programs, creating new state requirements, and setting the stage for increased federal fiscal oversight, the act has disturbed an uneasy truce in American federalism. This article outlines a policy proposal designed to harness cooperative federalism, based on the shared state and federal desire to control health care cost growth. The proposal, which borrows features of the Medicare Shared Savings Program, would provide states with an incentive in the form of an increased share of the savings they generate in programs that have federal financial participation, as long as they meet defined performance standards.
Capitated, Multisector, Universal Preventive Health Care for Children and Youth

Edward L. Schor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.5929

2024-03-05

JAMA Pediatrics

Abstract:This Viewpoint discusses the need to reorganize the provision of well-child care whereby responsibility for services is formally divided and coordinated and funding is free from traditional, risk-based health insurance.

pediatrics
A Complex Systems Science Approach to Healthcare Costs and Quality

Yaneer Bar-Yam with Shlomiya Bar-Yam,Karla Z. Bertrand,Nancy Cohen,Alexander S. Gard-Murray,Helen P. Harte,Luci Leykum

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1207.0034

2012-06-30

Abstract:There is a mounting crisis in delivering affordable healthcare in the US. For decades, key decision makers in the public and private sectors have considered cost-effectiveness in healthcare a top priority. Their actions have focused on putting a limit on fees, services, or care options. However, they have met with limited success as costs have increased rapidly while the quality isn't commensurate with the high costs. A new approach is needed. Here we provide eight scientifically-based steps for improving the healthcare system. The core of the approach is promoting the best use of resources by matching the people and organization to the tasks they are good at, and providing the right incentive structure. Harnessing costs need not mean sacrificing quality. Quality service and low costs can be achieved by making sure the right people and the right organizations deliver services. As an example, the frequent use of emergency rooms for non-emergency care demonstrates the waste of resources of highly capable individuals and facilities resulting in high costs and ineffective care. Neither free markets nor managed care guarantees the best use of resources. A different oversight system is needed to promote the right incentives. Unlike managed care, effective oversight must not interfere with the performance of care. Otherwise, cost control only makes care more cumbersome. The eight steps we propose are designed to dramatically improve the effectiveness of the healthcare system, both for those who receive services and those who provide them.

Physics and Society,Computers and Society
Strategy and risk sharing in hospital-postacute care integration

John P McHugh,Jacqueline Zinn,Renee R Shield,Denise A Tyler,Emily A Gadbois,Sneha Soni,Vincent Mor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000204

Abstract:Issue/trend: Postacute care has been identified as a primary area for cost containment. The continued shift of payment structures from volume to value has often put hospitals at the forefront of addressing postacute care cost containment. However, hospitals continue to struggle with models to manage patients in postacute care institutions, such as skilled nursing facilities or in home health agencies. Recent research has identified postacute care network development as one mechanism to improve outcomes for patients sent to postacute care providers. Many hospitals, though, have not utilized this strategy for fear of not adhering to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirements that patients are given choice when discharged to postacute care. Managerial approach: A hospital's approach to postacute care integration will be dictated by environmental uncertainty and the level of embeddedness hospitals have with potential postacute care partners. Hospitals, though, must also consider how and when to extend shared savings to postacute care partners, which will be based on the complexity of the risk-sharing calculation, the ability to maintain network flexibility, and the potential benefits of preserving competition and innovation among the network members. For hospital leaders, postacute care network development should include a robust and transparent data management process, start with an embedded network that maintains network design flexibility, and include a care management approach that includes patient-level coordination. Conclusion: The design of care management models could benefit from elevating the role of postacute care providers in the current array of risk-based payment models, and these providers should consider developing deeper relationships with select postacute care providers to achieve cost containment.
How to Pay for Health Care

Michael E Porter,Robert S Kaplan

Abstract:The United States stands at a crossroads in how to pay for health care. Fee for service, the dominant payment model in the U.S. and many other countries, is now widely recognized as perhaps the single biggest obstacle to improving health care delivery. A battle is currently raging, outside of the public eye, between the advocates of two radically different payment approaches: capitation and bundled payments. The stakes are high, and the outcome will define the shape of the health care system for many years to come, for better or for worse. In this article, the authors argue that although capitation may deliver modest savings in the short run, it brings significant risks and will fail to fundamentally change the trajectory of a broken system. The bundled payment model, in contrast, triggers competition between providers to create value where it matters--at the individual patient level--and puts health care on the right path. The authors provide robust proof-of-concept examples of bundled payment initiatives in the U.S. and abroad, address the challenges of transitioning to bundled payments, and respond to critics' concerns about obstacles to implementation.
The Case for Capitation

Brent C James,Gregory P Poulsen

Abstract:Recent studies suggest that at least 35%--and maybe over 5o%--of all health care spending in the U.S. is wasted on inadequate, unnecessary, and inefficient care and suboptimal business processes. But efforts to get rid of that waste face a huge challenge: Under current payment methods, the providers who develop more-cost-effective approaches don't receive any of the savings. Instead, the money goes mainly to insurers. The providers, who are paid for the volume of services delivered, end up actually losing money, which undermines their finances and their ability to invest in more cost-saving innovations. To address this quandary, say two top execs from the nonprofit Intermountain Healthcare system, we need a different way to pay for health care: population-based payment. PBP gives care delivery groups a fixed per-person payment that covers all of an individual's health care services in a given year. Under it, providers benefit from the savings of all efforts to attack waste, encouraging them to do it more. And though PBP may sound similar to the HMOs of the 1990s, there are significant twists: Payments go directly to care delivery groups, and patients' physicians--not insurance companies--assume responsibility for overseeing and managing the cost of treatment. Provider groups are also required to meet quality standards that further protect patients. By applying PBP in just part of its system, Intermountain, which serves 2 million people, has been able to chop $688 million in annual waste and bring total costs down 13%.
Demand and Supply Drivers of Medicare and Non-Medicare Health Spending: An Analysis of U.S. States, 1991-2019

Adam Gaffney,Danny McCormick,Gracie Himmelstein,Steffie Woolhandler,David U Himmelstein

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/27551938241258399

2024-07-25

Abstract:For the last four decades, policymakers have attempted to control the United States's high health care costs by reducing patients' demand for care (e.g., by imposing managed-care restrictions or high costs on patients at the time of use). Yet studies based mostly on data from the public Medicare program, which covers mostly elderly Americans, suggest that supply (e.g., number of physicians or hospital beds) rather than demand drives aggregate service use and, hence, costs. Using variation between U.S. states in per enrollee Medicare spending versus per capita spending of all other (non-Medicare) individuals, we find that greater supply boosts costs for the entire population. Furthermore, we find that factors that suppress demand in the non-Medicare population do reduce non-Medicare health care spending, but simultaneously increase Medicare spending. This suggests that for a given supply of medical resources, suppressing demand for one group of patients may produce a compensatory increase in provision of care to those whose demand has not been suppressed. Health planning to assure adequate medical resources where they are needed while preventing excess supply where it is duplicative and wasteful is likely a more effective cost control strategy than the imposition of managed-care restrictions or imposing higher costs onto patients seeking care.
The impact of telehealth cost-sharing on healthcare utilization: Evidence from high-deductible health plans

Risha Gidwani,Veronica Yank,Lane Burgette,Aaron Kofner,Steven M Asch,Zachary Wagner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14343

2024-08-13

Abstract:Objective: Evaluate whether cost-sharing decreases led high-deductible health plans (HDHP) enrollees to increase their use of healthcare. Data sources, study setting: National sample of chronically-ill patients age 18-64 from 2018 to 2020 (n = 1,318,178). Study design: Difference-in-differences analyses using entropy-balancing weights were used to evaluate the effect of a policy shift to $0 cost-sharing for telehealth on utilization for HDHP compared with non-HDHP enrollees. Due to this shock, HDHP enrollees experienced substantial declines in cost-sharing for telehealth, while non-HDHP enrollees experienced small declines. Event study models were also used to evaluate changes over time. Data collection/extraction methods: Outcomes included use of any outpatient care; use of $0 telehealth; use of $0 telehealth as a proportion of all outpatient care; and use of any telehealth. To test whether any differences were due to preferences for care modality versus cost-sharing, we further evaluated use of non-$0 telehealth as a placebo test. Principal findings: There was no difference in change in overall outpatient visits (p = 0.84), with chronicall-ill HDHP enrollees using less care both before and after the policy shift. However, compared with non-HDHP enrollees, HDHP enrollees increased their use of $0 telehealth by 0.08 visits over a 9-month period, a 27% increase (95% CI 0.07-0.09, p < 0.001) and shifted 1.2 percentage points more of their care to $0 telehealth, a 15% increase (ß = 0.01, 95% CI 0.01, 0.01, p < 0.001). However, HDHP enrollees had lower uptake of non-$0 telehealth than non-HDHP enrollees (ß = -0.01, 95%CI -0.02, 0.00, p = 0.04). Conclusions: Recent-but-expiring federal legislation exempts telehealth from HDHP deductibles for care provided in 2023 and 2024. Our results indicate that extending the protections provided by this legislation could help reduce the gap in access to care for chronically-ill persons enrolled in HDHPs.
It Takes 2 to Tango. Setting Out the Conditions in Which Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Arrangements Work for Both Parties

Adrian Towse,Elisabeth Fenwick

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.03.2196

Abstract:Objectives: Faster regulatory approval processes often fail to achieve faster patient access. We seek an approach, using performance-based risk-sharing arrangements, to address uncertainty for payers regarding the relative effectiveness and value for money of products launched through accelerated approval schemes. One important reason for risk sharing is to resolve differences of opinion between innovators and payers about a technology's underlying value. To date, there has been no formal attempt to set out the circumstances in which risk sharing can address these differences. Methods: We use a value of information framework to understand what a performance-based risk-sharing arrangements can, in principle, add to a reimbursement scheme, separating payer perspectives on cost-effectiveness and the value of research from those of the innovator. We find 16 scenarios, developing 5 rules to analyze these 16 scenarios, identifying cases in which risk sharing adds value for both parties. Results: We find that risk sharing provides an improved solution in 9 out of 16 combinations of payer and innovator expectations about treatment outcome and the value of further research. Among our assumptions, who pays for research and scheme administration costs are key. Conclusions: Steps should be undertaken to make risk sharing more practical, ensuring that payers consider it an option. This requires additional costs to the health system falling on the innovator in an efficient way that aligns incentives for product development for global markets. Health systems benefits are earlier patient access to cost-effective treatments and payers with higher confidence of not wasting money. Innovators get greater returns while conducting research.
The ACA’s Cost-Sharing Reduction Plans: A Key to Affordable Health Coverage for Millions of U.S. Workers

Jon Gabel,Heidi Whitmore,Matthew Green,Adrienne Call,Sam Stromberg,Rebecca Oran

Abstract:Issue: Without the cost-sharing reductions (CSRs) made available by the Affordable Care Act, health plans sold in the marketplaces may be unaffordable for many low-income people. CSRs are available to households earning between 100 percent and 250 percent of the federal poverty level that choose a silver-level marketplace plan. In 2016, about 7 million people received cost-sharing reductions that substantially lowered their deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, and out-of-pocket limits. Goal: To examine variations in consumer cost-sharing reductions between silver-level plans with CSRs to traditional marketplace plans and to employer-based insurance. Methods: Data analysis of 1,209 CSR-eligible plans sold in individual marketplaces in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Key findings and conclusions: Cost-sharing amounts in silver plans with CSRs are much less than those in non-CSR base silver plans; silver plans with CSRs generally offer far better financial protection than those without. General annual deductibles range from $246 for CSR silver plans with a platinum-level actuarial value (94%) to as much as $3,063 for non-CSR silver plans. Out-of-pocket limits vary from $6,223 in base silver plans to $1,102 in silver plans with CSRs and a platinum-level actuarial level.
Controlling costs: opportunities for physician-hospital collaborations and ventures

Roby C Thompson Jr,Jennifer Reedstrom Bishop

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318053d478

2007-05-15

Abstract:Study design: Analysis of federal laws, regulations, and commentary relevant to gainsharing and other physician-hospital collaborations. Review of health, legal, and medical literature to identify relevant case studies, primarily from 2000 to the present. Objective: To illustrate a number of physician-hospital collaboration and joint venture models to explore opportunities for physicians and hospital partners to enhance revenues and contain costs in the provision of health care. Summary of background data: There are numerous physician-hospital joint ventures throughout the United States and 8 approved gainsharing programs. Few comparisons of gainsharing as compared to other joint venture structures are available to hospitals and physicians. Methods: A narrative review of health, legal, and business literature, regulations, and commentary to identify physician-hospital collaborations and ventures as well as applicable regulatory authorities. Results: There are numerous joint venture and collaboration models used throughout the country for physician-hospital collaborations with varying degrees of success. Eight approved gainsharing programs have been implemented. Conclusions: Physician-hospital collaborations, gainsharing, and joint ventures are expanding throughout the country in response to reimbursement pressures and movement of care into the ambulatory setting. These partnerships can be successful where there is sufficient alignment of interests to offset the operational and regulatory complexities that such partnerships present.
Moving beyond Round Pegs and Square Holes: Restructuring Medicare To Improve Chronic Care

Jennifer L. Wolff,Chad Boult

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-143-6-200509200-00008

IF: 39.2

2005-09-20

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:Chronic disease is the norm rather than the exception among Medicare beneficiaries, yet Medicare's benefit structure and reimbursement mechanisms are poorly aligned with high-quality chronic care. This disconnect is thought to undermine the quality of chronic care, thereby contributing to excess program spending and placing beneficiaries at risk for undesirable health outcomes. Despite widespread recognition of this mismatch, there is little compelling evidence to suggest that successful quality improvement initiatives would reduce the costs of the Medicare program. This paper describes state-of-the-art chronic care innovations to date, discusses ongoing and planned efforts by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to test related changes to Medicare's benefit structure and provider reimbursement, and suggests opportunities for future progress in this area.

medicine, general & internal

Why Cost Sharing Alone Will Not Fix Health Care Costs

Linking Cost Sharing to Value: An Unrivaled Yet Unrealized Public Health Opportunity

Episode-Based Cost Sharing to Prospectively Guarantee Patients’ Out-of-Pocket Costs

Cost sharing in managed care and the ethical question of business purpose

Patient Cost-Sharing and Hospitalization Offsets in the Elderly

The effects of patient cost sharing on inpatient utilization, cost, and outcome

High and Rising Health Care Costs. Part 4: Can Costs Be Controlled While Preserving Quality?

Reducing administrative costs in US health care: Assessing single payer and its alternatives

Inequities in Unexpected Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care in the United States

Promoting cooperative federalism through state shared savings

Capitated, Multisector, Universal Preventive Health Care for Children and Youth

A Complex Systems Science Approach to Healthcare Costs and Quality

Strategy and risk sharing in hospital-postacute care integration

How to Pay for Health Care

The Case for Capitation

Demand and Supply Drivers of Medicare and Non-Medicare Health Spending: An Analysis of U.S. States, 1991-2019

The impact of telehealth cost-sharing on healthcare utilization: Evidence from high-deductible health plans

It Takes 2 to Tango. Setting Out the Conditions in Which Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Arrangements Work for Both Parties

The ACA’s Cost-Sharing Reduction Plans: A Key to Affordable Health Coverage for Millions of U.S. Workers

Controlling costs: opportunities for physician-hospital collaborations and ventures

Moving beyond Round Pegs and Square Holes: Restructuring Medicare To Improve Chronic Care