Dataset Information

Provision of Hospital Price Information After Increases in Financial Penalties for Failure to Comply With a US Federal Hospital Price Transparency Rule.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Price transparency regulations aim to help patients make informed decisions about medical care, but enforcing these rules is a policy challenge. There may be an association between financial penalties and hospital compliance for enforcing price transparency regulations.

Objective

To evaluate the association between financial penalties and acute care hospital compliance with the 2021 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Price Transparency Rule.

Design, setting, and participants

This cohort study uses an instrumental variable design to evaluate the responses of 4377 acute care hospitals in the US operating in 2021 and 2022 to changes in financial penalties in the context of a federal rule requiring hospitals to disclose privately negotiated prices.

Exposure

Changes in noncompliance penalties between 2021 and 2022 based on a nonlinear function of bed counts.

Main outcomes and measures

Whether hospitals publicly posted a machine-readable file with private, payer-specific negotiated prices at the service-code level. Negative controls were used to address confounding.

Results

The final sample included 4377 hospitals. Compliance increased from 70.4% (n = 3082) in 2021 to 87.7% (n = 3841) in 2022, with 90.2% of hospitals (n = 3948) reporting prices in at least 1 year. Noncompliance penalties increased from $109 500/y in 2021 to a mean (SD) of $510 976 ($534 149)/y in 2022. Penalties in 2022 were substantial, averaging 0.49% of total hospital revenue, 0.53% of total hospital costs, and 1.3% of total employee wages. Compliance increases were significantly positively correlated with penalty increases: a $500 000 increase in penalty was associated with a 2.9-percentage point (95% CI, 1.7-4.2 percentage points; P < .001) increase in compliance. Results were robust to controlling for observable hospital characteristics. No associations were found for preperiod (2021) compliance or ranges of bed counts where penalties do not vary.

Conclusions and relevance

In this cohort study of 4377 hospitals, compliance with the CMS Price Transparency Rule was associated with increased financial penalties. These findings are relevant for the enforcement of other regulations designed to promote transparency in health care.

SUBMITTER: Kong E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10308252 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Provision of Hospital Price Information After Increases in Financial Penalties for Failure to Comply With a US Federal Hospital Price Transparency Rule.

Kong Edward E Ji Yunan Y

JAMA network open 20230601 6

<h4>Importance</h4>Price transparency regulations aim to help patients make informed decisions about medical care, but enforcing these rules is a policy challenge. There may be an association between financial penalties and hospital compliance for enforcing price transparency regulations.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the association between financial penalties and acute care hospital compliance with the 2021 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Price Transparency Rule.<h4>Design, setti ...[more]

PMID: 37378982

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo understand US hospitals' initial strategic responses to the federal price transparency rule that took effect January 2021.Data sources and study settingPrimary interview data collected from 12 not-for-profit hospital organizations in six US metropolitan markets. All but one organization were multihospital systems; the 12 organizations represent a total of 81 hospitals.Study designExploratory, cross-sectional, qualitative interview study of a convenience sample of hospital organizations across six geographically and compliance diverse markets.Data collection/extraction methodsIn-depth, semi-structured, qualitative interviews with 16 key informants across sampled organizations between November 2021 and March 2022. Interviews solicited data about internal organizational factors and external market factors affecting strategic responses. Transcribed interviews were de-identified, coded, and analyzed using the constant comparative method.Principal findingsHospitals' strategic responses were influenced internally by the degree of the regulation's alignment with organizational values and goals, and task complexity vis-a-vis available resources. We found extensive variation in organizational capabilities to comply, and all but one organization relied on consultants and vendors to some degree. Key external factors driving strategic responses were hospitals' variable perceptions about how available price information would affect their competitive position, bottom line, and reputation. Organizations with more confidence in their interpretation of the environment, including how peers or purchasers would behave, and greater clarity in their own organization's position and goals, had more definitive initial strategic responses. In the first year, organizations' strategic responses skewed toward compliance, especially for the rule's consumer shopping requirements.ConclusionsA deeper understanding of the realities of operationalizing price transparency policy for hospitals is needed to improve its impact.

Project description:BackgroundThe Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule, effective January 1, 2021, requires hospitals to post online a machine-readable file that includes payer-specific negotiated commercial prices for all services. The regulation aims to improve the affordability of hospital care by promoting price competition. However, a low compliance level among hospitals would compromise the operational effectiveness of this regulation. Understanding hospitals' compliance status to the regulation has important implications for its enforcement effort and effectiveness assessment.ObjectiveTo analyze nationwide hospitals' compliance status to the Hospital Price Transparency Rule.DesignCross-sectional observational study.ParticipantsA total of 3558 Medicare-certified general acute-care hospitals were examined.Main measuresA binary compliance rating was generated by using data collected by Turquoise Health. "Noncompliance" means that no machine-readable file was posted or the posted file contains no commercial negotiated prices. "Compliance" means that a machine-readable file was posted with commercial negotiated prices for at least one insurance plan.Key resultsAs of June 1, 2021, 55% of the 3558 Medicare-certified general acute-care hospitals we examined had not posted a machine-readable file containing commercial negotiated prices. Wide variations of compliance existed across states and hospital referral regions. A hospital's compliance status is strongly associated with the average compliance status of peer hospitals in the same market. Hospitals with greater IT preparedness, for-profit hospitals, system-affiliated hospitals, large hospitals, and non-urban hospitals had greater compliance. More concentrated hospital markets had greater average compliance.ConclusionsHospitals take into consideration the behavior of their peers in the same market when making price disclosure decisions. Compliant hospitals are likely to have better IT preparedness, more financial resources and personnel expertise to mitigate the cost required for the implementation of the Price Transparency Rule. The compliance cost, therefore, might be a barrier for some hospitals.

Project description:ImportanceBeginning in fiscal year 2019, Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) stratifies hospitals into 5 peer groups based on the proportion of each hospital's patient population that is dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid. The effect of this policy change is largely unknown.ObjectiveTo identify hospital and state characteristics associated with changes in HRRP-related performance and penalties after stratification.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional analysis was performed of all 3049 hospitals participating in the HRRP in fiscal years 2018 and 2019, using publicly available data on hospital penalties, merged with information on hospital characteristics and state Medicaid eligibility cutoffs.ExposuresThe HRRP, under the 2018 traditional method and the 2019 stratification method.Main outcomes and measuresPerformance on readmissions, as measured by the excess readmissions ratio, and penalties under the HRRP both in relative percentage change and in absolute dollars.ResultsThe study sample included 3049 hospitals. The mean proportion of dually enrolled beneficiaries ranged from 9.5% in the lowest quintile to 44.7% in the highest quintile. At the hospital level, changes in penalties ranged from an increase of $225 000 to a decrease of more than $436 000 after stratification. In total, hospitals in the lowest quintile of dual enrollment saw an increase of $12 330 157 in penalties, while those in the highest quintile of dual enrollment saw a decrease of $22 445 644. Teaching hospitals (odds ratio [OR], 2.13; 95% CI, 1.76-2.57; P < .001) and large hospitals (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.22-1.86; P < .001) had higher odds of receiving a reduced penalty. Not-for-profit hospitals (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.80; P < .001) were less likely to have a penalty reduction than for-profit hospitals, and hospitals in the Midwest (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.34-0.57; P < .001) and South (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30-0.57; P < .001) were less likely to do so than hospitals in the Northeast. Hospitals with patients from the most disadvantaged neighborhoods (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 2.03-3.38; P < .001) and those with the highest proportion of beneficiaries with disabilities (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 2.50-3.90; P < .001) were markedly more likely to see a reduction in penalties, as were hospitals in states with the highest Medicaid eligibility cutoffs (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.50-2.14; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceStratification of the hospitals under the HRRP was associated with a significant shift in penalties for excess readmissions. Policymakers should monitor the association of this change with readmission rates as well as hospital financial performance as the policy is fully implemented.

Project description:BackgroundGlobal spending on health was continuing to rise over the past 20 years. To reduce the growth rates, alleviate information asymmetry, and improve the efficiency of healthcare markets, global health systems have initiated price and quality transparency tools in the hospital industry in the last two decades. OBJECTIVE : The objective of this review is to synthesize whether, to what extent, and how hospital price and quality transparency tools affected 1) the price of healthcare procedures and services, 2) the payments of consumers, and 3) the premium of health insurance plans bonding with hospital networks.MethodsA literature search of EMBASE, Web of Science, Econlit, Scopus, Pubmed, CINAHL, and PsychINFO was conducted, from inception to Oct 31, 2021. Reference lists and tracked citations of retrieved articles were hand-searched. Study characteristics were extracted, and included studies were scored through a risk of bias assessment framework. This systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO with registration No. CRD42022319070.ResultsOf 2157 records identified, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. Near 40 percent of studies focused on hospital quality transparency tools, and more than 90 percent of studies were from the US. Hospital price transparency reduced the price of laboratory and imaging tests except for office-visit services. Hospital quality transparency declined the level or growth rates of healthcare spending, while it adversely and significantly raised the price of healthcare services and consumers' payment in higher-ranked or rated facilities, which was referred to as the reputation premium in the healthcare industry. Hospital quality transparency not only leveraged private insurers bonding with a higher-rated hospital network to increase premiums, but also induced their anticipated pricing behaviors.ConclusionHospital price and quality transparency was not effective as expected. Future research should explore the understudied consequences of hospital quality transparency programs, such as the reputation/rating premium and its policy intervention.

Dataset Information

Provision of Hospital Price Information After Increases in Financial Penalties for Failure to Comply With a US Federal Hospital Price Transparency Rule.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Exposure

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Provision of Hospital Price Information After Increases in Financial Penalties for Failure to Comply With a US Federal Hospital Price Transparency Rule.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets