Inequities in Unexpected Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care in the United States
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".