High deductible health plans and survival among cancer survivors.
Authors: Justin Michael Barnes, Patricia Mae Garcia Santos, September Wallingford, Arjun Gupta, Meera Vimala Ragavan, Fumiko Chino
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2024)

11005 Background: High deductible health plans (HDHP) enable lower premiums at the expense of potentially high out-of-pocket costs. They are associated with more advanced cancer stage diagnoses and delayed or forgone care among cancer survivors. However, it is unknown how HDHPs are associated with survival among cancer survivors. Methods: Individuals ages 18-84 years with non-Medicaid insurance were identified from the 2011-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) with linked mortality files from the National Death Index. HDHP status was defined by the NHIS as a yearly deductible ≥$1200-1350 for an individual or ≥2400-$2700 for a family (values depend on survey year with increases over time). Cox proportional hazards models using age as the time scale were utilized to determine: 1) association of HDHP status with overall survival (OS) and cancer survival (CS; i.e., freedom from cancer death) among cancer survivors, and 2) how associations differed for survivors compared to those without a cancer history. Models accounted for the NHIS survey design and survey weights and were adjusted for insurance status, marital status, sex, comorbidities, education, income, national region, and cancer site and time since cancer diagnosis (if applicable). Sensitivity analyses adjusting for age at cancer diagnosis were performed using time since diagnosis as the time scale. Results: A total of 147,254 respondents were identified, 5.9% of whom were cancer survivors. 25.6% of survivors and 28.5% of individuals without a cancer history reported being insured by a HDHP at the time of NHIS participation. HDHP status was associated with worse OS (HR: 1.46, 95% CI = 1.19 - 1.79) and CS (HR: 1.34, 95% CI = 1.01 - 1.77) among cancer survivors overall in the adjusted model. HDHP status was additionally associated with worse OS among the following subgroups of cancer survivors: non-Hispanic White (HR: 1.45, 95% CI = 1.16 - 1.82), income &gt; 400% federal poverty level (HR: 1.65, 95% CI = 1.16 - 2.36), college (HR: 1.47, 95% CI = 1.07 – 2.00) or high school (HR: 1.59, 95% CI = 1.19 - 2.12) education, and multiple cancers (HR: 1.58, 95% CI = 1.06 - 2.36), without clear patterns by sex, comorbidities, insurance, and cancer site. Sensitivity analyses provided similar results. In contrast, among adults without a history of cancer at the time of NHIS participation, HDHP status was not significantly associated with OS (HR: 1.08, 0.96 - 1.21; Pinteraction &lt; .01) or CS (HR: 0.90, 95% CI = 0.70 - 1.14; Pinteraction &lt; .01). Conclusions: This nationwide population-based analysis suggests that HDHPs are associated with both worse overall survival and cancer survival among cancer survivors but are not associated with survival in adults without a history of cancer. HDHPs may financially disincentivize cancer survivors from utilizing necessary medical care to optimize survivorship thereby compromising mortality and cure. Policy changes to limit the proliferation of these plans may improve cancer outcomes.