Post on 24-Jan-2016
description
transcript
Impact of State Mandatory Health Impact of State Mandatory Health Insurance Coverage on the Insurance Coverage on the
Utilization of Selected Diabetes Utilization of Selected Diabetes Care ServicesCare Services
Rui Li, Ph.D.Rui Li, Ph.D.Ping Zhang, Ph.D.Ping Zhang, Ph.D.
Dekeely Hartsfield, M.P.HDekeely Hartsfield, M.P.H
Division of Diabetes TranslationDivision of Diabetes TranslationCenters for Disease Control and PreventionCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
Contact: Rli2@cdc.govContact: Rli2@cdc.gov
22
The findings and conclusions in this presentation have not been formally disseminated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy
14 million diagnosed with diabetes
7 million with un-diagnosed diabetes
41 million with pre-diabetes
NHANES
44
Diabetes is Serious and Costly in USDiabetes is Serious and Costly in US
Seven percent of US populationSeven percent of US population
Serious complications Serious complications
Cost more than 132 billion per year in Cost more than 132 billion per year in 20022002
Complications can be prevented or Complications can be prevented or delayeddelayed
55
Research questionResearch question
State State Mandatory Mandatory Laws and Laws and
RegulationsRegulationsUtilization of the services
Health Insurance Coverage
66
State MandatesState Mandates
Affect private insuranceAffect private insuranceGroup and individual policies from Insurance Group and individual policies from Insurance companies or HMOs within a statecompanies or HMOs within a stateSelf-insured companies are exempted by Self-insured companies are exempted by
Employee Retirement Income Security Act Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)(ERISA) 30-50% employees are exempted30-50% employees are exempted
Forty-six states and D.C. have mandate Forty-six states and D.C. have mandate
77
Name of the States with Laws and Effective YearName of the States with Laws and Effective Year
Effective YearEffective Year StatesStates19871987 WIWI
19941994 MN, NYMN, NY
19951995 FLFL
19961996 ME, NJ, RI, WVME, NJ, RI, WV
19971997 AK, NV, NM, OK, TN, TXAK, NV, NM, OK, TN, TX
19981998 CO, CT, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MS, MO, NH, CO, CT, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MS, MO, NH, NC, VT, WANC, VT, WA
19991999 AZ, IL, IA, PA, VAAZ, IL, IA, PA, VA
20002000 AK, CA, DE, MA, NE, SC, SD, UTAK, CA, DE, MA, NE, SC, SD, UT
20012001 HI, MI, WY, D.C.HI, MI, WY, D.C.
20022002 MT, ORMT, OR
88
Coverage of State Mandates Coverage of State Mandates CoverageCoverage Number of statesNumber of states
Self-management educationSelf-management education 4040
Medical nutritional therapyMedical nutritional therapy 2424
Therapeutic foot wearTherapeutic foot wear 1212
Periodical eye and foot examsPeriodical eye and foot exams 33
HbA1c testHbA1c test 55
General coverage of pharmaceuticals, General coverage of pharmaceuticals, devices, and suppliesdevices, and supplies
4141
Devices for insulin self-administrationDevices for insulin self-administration 2323
Monitors and stripsMonitors and strips 3232
InsulinInsulin 3434
Oral agentsOral agents 3131
High-risk assessmentHigh-risk assessment 11
VaccinationVaccination 11
99
HypothesesHypothesesMandate Coverage Utilization
Coverage of Monitors and strips
HbA1c test
Self-management education (SME)
Eye exams
Foot exams
Footwear
Having Law
DSMG
Annual foot exams
Annual eye exams
Increase
Outcome
Lower HbA1c level
Lower Mortality
Less eye complications
Less foot complicationsHaving all three
1010
Data SourcesData Sources
Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance Survey (BRFSS) 1996-2000 Survey (BRFSS) 1996-2000 Annual, state-based, random telephone-Annual, state-based, random telephone-
survey of 150,000-210,000 community-survey of 150,000-210,000 community-dwelling US adults (aged 18 or older)dwelling US adults (aged 18 or older)
Survey questions designed by CDCSurvey questions designed by CDC Core questionnaire required to report by Core questionnaire required to report by
statesstates More than 40 states reported special diabetes More than 40 states reported special diabetes
modulemodule
1111
Study PopulationStudy Population
People with self-reported diabetesPeople with self-reported diabetes
9215 observations in the final 9215 observations in the final analysisanalysis
Health insurance typeHealth insurance typeEmployer providedEmployer provided
Self-boughtSelf-bought
1212
Econometric modelEconometric model
Prob (UtilizationProb (Utilization i,k,ti,k,t)=)=Logit (Logit ( + + 11*Law*Lawk,t=mk,t=m + + 22*Law*Lawk,t>mk,t>m + + 33*Z*Zii + + 44*X*Xkk + +
55**TimeTimett)+ )+
Z—Individual characteristicsZ—Individual characteristicsX—State level characteristicsX—State level characteristicsi—Individual indicatori—Individual indicatork—State indicatork—State indicatort—Time indicatort—Time indicatorm—Year that law took effectm—Year that law took effect
We used STATA 8 survey commands to do all the analysisWe used STATA 8 survey commands to do all the analysis
1313
Dependent VariablesDependent Variablesbased on Healthy People 2010 National Goals for based on Healthy People 2010 National Goals for
DiabetesDiabetes
If Self-monitoring blood glucose (DSMG) If Self-monitoring blood glucose (DSMG) at least once dailyat least once daily ““About how often do you check your blood for glucose or About how often do you check your blood for glucose or
sugar? Include times when checked by a family member or sugar? Include times when checked by a family member or friend, but do not include times when checked by a health friend, but do not include times when checked by a health professional.”professional.”
If receiving annual eye dilated examsIf receiving annual eye dilated exams ““When was the last time you had an eye exam in which the When was the last time you had an eye exam in which the
pupils were dilated? This would have made you pupils were dilated? This would have made you temporarily sensitive to bright light.”temporarily sensitive to bright light.”
1414
Dependent Variables (Cont’d)Dependent Variables (Cont’d)
If receiving annual foot examsIf receiving annual foot exams ““About how many times in the last year has a health About how many times in the last year has a health
professional checked your feet for any sores or irritations?”professional checked your feet for any sores or irritations?”
If receiving all three servicesIf receiving all three services
1515
Figure I. Percentage of People with Diabetes Using the Selected Diabetes Care Services Before and After Mandate (unadjusted)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
DailySMBG
Annualfoot
exams
Annualeye
exams
Combine
Before mandate
First year of Mandate
The follow ing years
Healthy People 2010 Goal
ResultsResults
***
* ** *
* ***
1616
Effect of State Mandates on Daily Self-monitoring Effect of State Mandates on Daily Self-monitoring Blood Glucose levelBlood Glucose level
Coefficient (s.e.)Coefficient (s.e.)First Year (monitors & strips) First Year (monitors & strips) aa 0.02 (0.03)0.02 (0.03)
Years afterYears after 0.05* (0.02)0.05* (0.02)
First year (SME)First year (SME)bb 0.01 (0.03)0.01 (0.03)
Years afterYears after 0.04 (0.02)0.04 (0.02)
First year (HbA1c test)First year (HbA1c test)cc 0.09 (0.05)0.09 (0.05)
Years afterYears after 0.02 (0.03)0.02 (0.03)
a,b,c: Results were from three regressions for different law componentsThe reported coefficients were marginal probabilities*: p<=0.05; **: p<=0.01; ***: p<=0.001
1717
Effects of State Mandates on Annual Eye ExamsEffects of State Mandates on Annual Eye Exams
Coefficient (s.e.)Coefficient (s.e.)
First year (SME)First year (SME) -0.01 (0.03)-0.01 (0.03)
Years afterYears after 0.01 (0.02)0.01 (0.02)
First year (eye exams)First year (eye exams) 0.01 (0.03)0.01 (0.03)
Years afterYears after -0.03 (0.03)-0.03 (0.03)
1818
Effects of State Mandates on Annual Foot Effects of State Mandates on Annual Foot ExamsExams
Coefficient( s.e.)Coefficient( s.e.)
First year (SME)First year (SME) 0.05 (0.03)0.05 (0.03)
Years afterYears after 0.04 (0.02)0.04 (0.02)&&
First year (foot exam)First year (foot exam) 0.11 (0.07)0.11 (0.07)
Years afterYears after 0.02 (0.03)0.02 (0.03)
First year (foot wear)First year (foot wear) 0.06 (0.04)0.06 (0.04)
Years afterYears after 0.04 (0.03)0.04 (0.03)
&: significant at 0.1 level
1919
Effects of Having State Mandate on Effects of Having State Mandate on Receiving all Three ServicesReceiving all Three Services
Coefficient (s.e.)Coefficient (s.e.)First yearFirst year 0.07** (0.03)0.07** (0.03)
Years afterYears after 0.04** (0.02)0.04** (0.02)
2020
Conclusion and ImplicationsConclusion and Implications
State mandatory health insurance coverage has State mandatory health insurance coverage has some effect on the utilization of selected some effect on the utilization of selected diabetes care servicesdiabetes care services
Coverage on diabetes monitor and strips increased likelihood Coverage on diabetes monitor and strips increased likelihood of daily SMBGof daily SMBGState mandated did not have an effect on annual eye and State mandated did not have an effect on annual eye and foot examsfoot examsIncreased SMBG increased likelihood of receiving all three Increased SMBG increased likelihood of receiving all three services services
Further studies are needed to understand why Further studies are needed to understand why the state mandates had limited effect on the state mandates had limited effect on selected diabetes servicesselected diabetes services