title: Potential impact of co-payment at point of care to influence emergency department utilization.
abstract: 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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Emergency Medicine, Christus Spohn/Texas A & M Health Science Center , Corpus Christi, TX , United States.
authors.forename: Zachary
authors.initials: Z
authors.lastname: Baum
authors.affiliation: Department of Emergency Medicine, Christus Spohn/Texas A & M Health Science Center , Corpus Christi, TX , United States.
authors.forename: Michael R
authors.initials: MR
authors.lastname: Simmons
authors.affiliation: Department of Mathematics, Texas A & M University-Corpus Christi , Corpus Christi, TX , United States.
authors.forename: Jose H
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Guardiola
authors.affiliation: Department of Emergency Medicine, Christus Spohn/Texas A & M Health Science Center , Corpus Christi, TX , United States.
authors.forename: Cynthia
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Smith
authors.affiliation: Graduate Medical Education, Christus Spohn/Texas A & M Health Science Center , Corpus Christi, TX , United States.
authors.forename: Lynn
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Carrasco
authors.affiliation: Department of Emergency Medicine, Christus Spohn/Texas A & M Health Science Center , Corpus Christi, TX , United States.
authors.forename: Joann
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Ha
authors.affiliation: Department of Emergency Medicine, Christus Spohn/Texas A & M Health Science Center , Corpus Christi, TX , United States.
authors.forename: Peter
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Richman
keywords: Co-payment; Emergency department; Utilization
references.citation: Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Aug;32(8):1398-406
references.pmid: 23918484
references.citation: JAMA. 2007 Mar 14;297(10):1093-102
references.pmid: 17356030
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1985 Aug 22;313(8):484-90
references.pmid: 3927165
references.citation: Med Care Res Rev. 2013 Oct;70(5):514-30
references.pmid: 23771877
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1981 Dec 17;305(25):1501-7
references.pmid: 6795505
references.citation: Health Serv Res. 2006 Oct;41(5):1801-20
references.pmid: 16987303
references.citation: JAMA. 1983 Apr 22-29;249(16):2220-7
references.pmid: 6834620
references.citation: J Gen Intern Med. 2008 Aug;23(8):1131-6
references.pmid: 18443882
references.citation: Am J Public Health. 2001 Nov;91(11):1889-94
references.pmid: 11684621
references.citation: Med Care. 2005 Aug;43(8):810-6
references.pmid: 16034295
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1997 Jun 12;336(24):1722-9
references.pmid: 9180090
references.citation: Med Care. 2013 Mar;51(3):224-30
references.pmid: 23222497
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 1986 Feb;104(2):246-51
references.pmid: 3946953
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e35903
references.pmid: 22567118
references.citation: Arch Intern Med. 1989 Jul;149(7):1645-8
references.pmid: 2742438
references.citation: Am Health Drug Benefits. 2010 Jul;3(4):248-56
references.pmid: 25126317
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1996 Mar 7;334(10):635-41
references.pmid: 8592528