Dataset Information

Price Transparency in Primary Care: Can Patients Learn About Costs When Scheduling an Appointment?

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cost-sharing in health insurance plans creates incentives for patients to shop for lower prices, but it is unknown what price information patients can obtain when scheduling office visits.

Objective

To determine whether new patients can obtain price information for a primary care visit and identify variation across insurance types, offices, and geographic areas.

Design

Simulated patient methodology in which trained interviewers posed as non-elderly adults seeking new patient primary care appointments. Caller insurance type (employer-sponsored insurance [ESI], Marketplace, or uninsured) and plan were experimentally manipulated. Callers who were offered a visit asked for price information. Unadjusted means and regression-adjusted differences by insurance, office types, and geography were calculated.

Participants

Calls to a representative sample of primary care offices in ten states in 2014: Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas (N?=?7865).

Main measures

Callers recorded whether they were able to obtain a price. If not, they recorded whether they were referred to other sources for price information.

Key results

Overall, 61.8% of callers with ESI were able to obtain a price, versus 89.2% of uninsured and 47.3% of Marketplace callers (P?ConclusionsPrice information is often unavailable for privately insured patients seeking primary care visits at the time a visit is scheduled.

SUBMITTER: Saloner B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5481227 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Price Transparency in Primary Care: Can Patients Learn About Costs When Scheduling an Appointment?

Saloner Brendan B Cope Lisa Clemans LC Hempstead Katherine K Rhodes Karin V KV Polsky Daniel D Kenney Genevieve M GM

Journal of general internal medicine 20170206 7

<h4>Background</h4>Cost-sharing in health insurance plans creates incentives for patients to shop for lower prices, but it is unknown what price information patients can obtain when scheduling office visits.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether new patients can obtain price information for a primary care visit and identify variation across insurance types, offices, and geographic areas.<h4>Design</h4>Simulated patient methodology in which trained interviewers posed as non-elderly adults seeking ...[more]

PMID: 28168538

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIntegrated dental services within the Health System, particularly at primary health care, are crucial to reverse the current impact of oral diseases, which are among the most prevalent diseases worldwide. However, the use of dental services is determined by complex phenomena related to the individual, the environment and practices in which care is offered. Therefore, factors associated with dental appointments scheduling can affect positively or negatively the use of dental services. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the indicators for dental appointment scheduling in Primary Health Care (PHC).MethodsThe present is a cross-sectional analytical study that used data from the external assessment of the third cycle of the National Program for Improving Access and Quality in Primary Care (PMAQ-AB), carried out between 2017 and 2018, in Brazil. The final sample consisted of 85,231 patients and 22,475 Oral Health teams (OHTs). The outcome variable was the fact that the user sought for a dental appointment at the Primary Health Care Unit. A multilevel analysis was carried out to verify the association between individual variables (related to users) and contextual variables (related to the OHTs) in relation to the outcome.ResultsOnly 58.1% of the users interviewed at these Primary Health Care Units seek the available dental care. The variables with the greatest effect on the outcome were the patient's age up to 42 years old (OR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.96-2.10), at individual level, and 'oral health teams that assisted no more than a single family health team (FHT)' (OR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.23-1.36) at contextual level. Other variables were also associated with the outcome, but with a smaller effect size.ConclusionIn conclusion, users' age and work process of OHT were indicators for dental appointment scheduling. Our results suggest that when OHT put the National Oral Health Policy guidelines into practice, by assisting only one FHT, the chance for PHC users seeking dental appointments is higher than OHTs that assist more than one FHT. Regarding age, patients aged up to 42 years are more likely to seek an appointment with a dentist.

Project description:BackgroundPublic reporting has been considered effective in reducing health care costs by mitigating information asymmetry in the market as payers have incorporated publicly available information mandates into pay-for-performance programs and value-based purchasing. Therefore, hospitals have faced increasing pressures to provide price transparency. Despite the widespread promotion of healthcare transparency, the effectiveness of public reporting has not yet been sufficiently understood. This study analyzed the impact of transparency policy and competition on hospital costs by taking the state operations of all-payer claims databases (APCDs) as a case of interest.MethodsWe employed a fixed-effects regression, which allows the generation of hospital-specific effects, in accordance with the suggestion by the Hausman test. The study samples comprise nonprofit and for-profit general acute care hospitals in the United States for 2011-2017. The finalized dataset ranges from 3547 observations in 2011 to 3405 observations in 2015 after removing missing values.ResultsWe found that hospitals in the states with APCDs tend to bear higher average operating expenses than those without APCDs, which may indicate that states maintaining higher healthcare expenditures are more attentive to a price transparency initiative and tend to adopt APCDs. With regard to competition, the results showed that weak market competition is significantly associated with higher operating costs, supporting the traditional competition theory. However, the combined effect of APCDs and competition did not indicate a significant association with operating expenses. Further investigation showed a continued tendency for a weak intensity of competition to be linked to lower hospital operating costs in states without APCDs. For those located in non-APCD adopted states, market consolidation helped hospitals coordinate care more effectively, economize operating costs, and enjoy economies of scale due to their large size. Similar trends did not appear in APCD-adopted states except for in 2015.ConclusionsThis study observed limited evidence of the impact of APCDs and market competition. Our findings suggest that states need to make multifaceted efforts to contain hospital costs, not solely depending on the rollout of cost information or market competition. Market concentration may lead to coordinated care or cost economization in some cases. Still, the existing literature also demonstrates some potentially harmful impacts of increased concentration in the healthcare market, such as inefficient use of resources, unilateral market power, and deterrence of innovation. The introduction of a price transparency tool may require additional policy actions that take market competition into consideration.

Project description:ImportanceTime pressure to provide a quick fix is commonly cited as a reason why opioids are frequently prescribed in the United States, but there is little evidence of an association between appointment timing and clinical decision-making. As the workday progresses and appointments run behind schedule, physicians may be more likely to prescribe opioids.ObjectiveTo estimate whether characteristics of appointment timing are associated with clinical decision-making about pain treatment.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study of physician behavior used data from electronic health record systems in primary care offices in the United States to analyze primary care appointments occurring in 2017 for patients with a new painful condition who had not received an opioid prescription within the past year.Main outcomes and measuresThe association between treatment decisions and 2 dimensions of appointment timing (order of appointment occurrence and delay relative to scheduled start time) were assessed. The rates of opioid prescribing were measured and compared with rates of nonopioid pain medication (ie, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) prescribing and referral to physical therapy. All rates were estimated within the same physician using physician fixed effects, adjusting for patient, appointment, and seasonal characteristics.ResultsAmong 678 319 primary care appointments (642 262 patients; 392 422 [61.1%] women) with 5603 primary care physicians, the likelihood that an appointment resulted in an opioid prescription increased by 33% as the workday progressed (1st to 3rd appointment, 4.0% [95% CI, 3.9%-4.1%] vs 19th to 21st appointment, 5.3% [95% CI. 5.1%-5.6%]; P < .001) and by 17% as appointments ran behind schedule (0-9 minutes late, 4.4% [95% CI, 4.3%-4.6%] vs ≥60 minutes late, 5.2% [95% CI, 5.0%-5.4%]; P < .001). Prescribing of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and referral to physical therapy did not display similar patterns.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that, even within an individual physician's schedule, clinical decision-making for opioid prescribing varies by the timing and lateness of appointments.

Project description:BackgroundThrough Community Care Networks (CCNs) implemented with the VA MISSION Act, VA expanded provider contracting and instituted network adequacy standards for Veterans' community care.ObjectiveTo determine whether early CCN implementation impacted community primary care (PC) appointment wait times overall, and by rural/urban and PC shortage area (HPSA) status.DesignUsing VA administrative data from February 2019 through February 2020 and a difference-in-differences approach, we compared wait times before and after CCN implementation for appointments scheduled by VA facilities that did (CCN appointments) and did not (comparison appointments) implement CCNs. We ran regression models with all appointments, and stratified by rural/urban and PC HPSA status. All models adjusted for Veteran characteristics and VA facility-level clustering.Appointments13,720 CCN and 40,638 comparison appointments.Main measuresWait time, measured as number of days from authorization to use community PC to a Veteran's first corresponding appointment.Key resultsOverall, unadjusted wait times increased by 35.7 days ([34.4, 37.1] 95% CI) after CCN implementation. In adjusted analysis, comparison wait times increased on average 33.7 days ([26.3, 41.2] 95% CI, p < 0.001) after CCN implementation; there was no significant difference for CCN wait times (across-group mean difference: 5.4 days, [-3.8, 14.6] 95% CI, p = 0.25). In stratified analyses, comparison wait time increases ranged from 29.6 days ([20.8, 38.4] 95% CI, p < 0.001) to 42.1 days ([32.9, 51.3] 95% CI, p > 0.001) after CCN implementation, while additional differences for CCN appointments ranged from 13.4 days ([3.5, 23.4] 95% CI, p = 0.008) to -15.1 days ([-30.1, -0.1] 95% CI, p = 0.05) for urban and PC HPSA appointments, respectively.ConclusionsAfter early CCN implementation, community PC wait times increased sharply at VA facilities that did and did not implement CCNs, regardless of rural/urban or PC HPSA status, suggesting community care demand likely overwhelmed VA resources such that CCNs had limited impact.

Project description:Little is known about how primary care physicians (PCPs) in routine outpatient practice use paid price information (i.e., the amount that insurers finally pay providers) in daily clinical practice.To describe the experiences of PCPs who have had paid price information on tests and procedures for at least 1 year.Cross-sectional study using semi-structured interviews and the constant comparative method of qualitative analysis.Forty-six PCPs within an accountable care organization.Via the ordering screen of their electronic health record, PCPs were presented with the median paid price for commonly ordered tests and procedures (e.g., blood tests, x-rays, CTs, MRIs).We asked PCPs for (a) their "gut reaction" to having paid price information, (b) the situations in which they used price information in clinical decision-making separate from or jointly with patients, (c) their thoughts on who bore the chief responsibility for discussing price information with patients, and (d) suggestions for improving physician-targeted price information interventions.Among "gut reactions" that ranged from positive to negative, all PCPs were more interested in having patient-specific price information than paid prices from the practice perspective. PCPs described that when patients' out-of-pocket spending concerns were revealed, price information helped them engage patients in conversations about how to alter treatment plans to make them more affordable. PCPs stated that having price information only slightly altered their test-ordering patterns and that they avoided mentioning prices when advising patients against unnecessary testing. Most PCPs asserted that physicians bear the chief responsibility for discussing prices with patients because of their clinical knowledge and relationships with patients. They wished for help from patients, practices, health plans, and society in order to support price transparency in healthcare.Physician-targeted price transparency efforts may provide PCPs with the information they need to respond to patients' concerns regarding out-of-pocket affordability rather than that needed to change test-ordering habits.

Dataset Information

Price Transparency in Primary Care: Can Patients Learn About Costs When Scheduling an Appointment?

Background

Objective

Design

Participants

Main measures

Key results

Publications

Price Transparency in Primary Care: Can Patients Learn About Costs When Scheduling an Appointment?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets