Dataset Information

Assessment of Out-of-Network Billing for Privately Insured Patients Receiving Care in In-Network Hospitals.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Although surprise medical bills are receiving considerable attention from lawmakers and the news media, to date there has been little systematic study of the incidence and financial consequences of out-of-network billing.

Objective

To examine out-of-network billing among privately insured patients with an inpatient admission or emergency department (ED) visit at in-network hospitals.

Design, setting, and participants

A retrospective analysis using data from the Clinformatics Data Mart database (Optum), which includes health insurance claims for individuals from all 50 US states receiving private health insurance from a large commercial insurer was conducted of all inpatient admissions (n = 5 457 981) and ED visits (n = 13 579 006) at in-network hospitals between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016. Data were collected and analyzed in March 2019.

Exposures

Receipt of a bill for care from at least 1 out-of-network physician or medical transport service associated with patient admission or ED visit.

Main outcomes and measures

The incidence of out-of-network billing and the potential amount of patients' financial liability associated with out-of-network bills from the admission or visit.

Results

Of 5 457 981 inpatient admissions and 13 579 006 ED admissions between 2010 and 2016, the percentage of ED visits with an out-of-network bill increased from 32.3% to 42.8% (P < .001) during the study period, and the mean (SD) potential financial responsibility for these bills increased from $220 ($420) to $628 ($865) (P < .001; all dollar values in 2018 US$). Similarly, the percentage of inpatient admissions with an out-of-network bill increased from 26.3% to 42.0% (P < .001), and the mean (SD) potential financial responsibility increased from $804 ($2456) to $2040 ($4967) (P < .001).

Conclusions and relevance

Out-of-network billing appears to have become common for privately insured patients even when they seek treatment at in-network hospitals. The mean amounts billed appear to be sufficiently large that they may create financial strain for a substantial proportion of patients.

SUBMITTER: Sun EC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6692693 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Privately insured patients who receive care from in-network physicians may receive unexpected out-of-network bills ("surprise bills") from out-of-network clinicians they did not choose. In elective surgery, this can occur if patients choose in-network surgeons and hospitals but receive out-of-network bills from other involved clinicians. Objective:To evaluate out-of-network billing across common elective operations performed with in-network primary surgeons and facilities. Design, Setting, and Participants:Retrospective analysis of claims data from a large US commercial insurer, representing 347?356 patients who had undergone 1 of 7 common elective operations (arthroscopic meniscal repair [116?749]; laparoscopic cholecystectomy [82?372]; hysterectomy [67?452]; total knee replacement [42?313]; breast lumpectomy [18?018]; colectomy [14?074]; coronary artery bypass graft surgery [6378]) by an in-network primary surgeon at an in-network facility between January 1, 2012, and September 30, 2017. Follow-up ended November 8, 2017. Exposure:Patient, clinician, and insurance factors potentially related to out-of-network bills. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was the proportion of episodes with out-of-network bills. The secondary outcome was the estimated potential balance bill associated with out-of-network bills from each surgical procedure, calculated as total out-of-network charges less the typical in-network price for the same service. Results:Among 347?356 patients (mean age, 48 [SD, 11] years; 66% women) who underwent surgery with in-network primary surgeons and facilities, 20.5% of episodes (95% CI, 19.4%-21.7%) had an out-of-network bill. In these episodes, the mean potential balance bill per episode was $2011 (95% CI, $1866-$2157) when present. Out-of-network bills were associated with surgical assistants in 37% of these episodes; when present, the mean potential balance bill was $3633 (95% CI, $3384-$3883). Out-of-network bills were associated with anesthesiologists in 37% of episodes; when present, the mean potential balance bill was $1219 (95% CI, $1049-$1388). Membership in health insurance exchange plans, compared with nonexchange plans, was associated with a significantly higher risk of out-of-network bills (27% vs 20%, respectively; risk difference, 6% [95% CI, 3.9%-8.9%]; P?<?.001). Surgical complications were associated with a significantly higher risk of out-of-network bills, compared with episodes with no complications (28% vs 20%, respectively; risk difference, 7% [95% CI, 5.8%-8.8%]; P?<?.001). Among 83?021 procedures performed at ambulatory surgery centers with in-network primary surgeons, 6.7% (95% CI, 5.8%-7.7%) included an out-of-network facility bill and 17.2% (95% CI, 15.7%-18.8%) included an out-of-network professional bill. Conclusions and Relevance:In this retrospective analysis of commercially insured patients who had undergone elective surgery at in-network facilities with in-network primary surgeons, a substantial proportion of operations were associated with out-of-network bills.

Project description:ObjectiveTo characterize physician health system membership in four states between 2012 and 2016 and to compare primary care quality and cost between in-system providers and non-system providers for the commercially insured population.Data sourcesPhysician membership in health systems was obtained from a unique longitudinal database on health systems and matched at the provider level to 2014 all-payer claims data from Colorado, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Utah.Study designUsing an observational study design, we compared physicians in health systems to non-system physicians located in the same state and geography on average cost of care (risk-adjusted using the Johns Hopkins' Adjusted Clinical Grouper), five HEDIS quality measures, one measure of developmental screening, and two Prevention Quality Indicator Measures.Data collection/extraction methodsPatients in commercial health plans were attributed to a primary care physician accounting for the plurality of office visits. A cohort for each quality measure was constructed based on appropriate measure specifications.Principal findingsThe share of physicians in health systems increased steadily from 2012 to 2016 and ranged from 48% in Colorado to 63% in Utah in 2016. Compared to physicians not in a system, system physicians performed similarly on most HEDIS quality metrics compared to non-system physicians. Patients attributed to in-system physicians had about 40% higher rates (P < .05) of Ambulatory Care Sensitive Admissions (measured in admissions per 100 000:921.33 in-system vs 674.61 not-in-system for acute composite; 2540.91 in-system vs 1972.17 for chronic composite In-system providers were associated with $29 (P < .05) higher average per member per month costs (453.37 vs 432.93). Overall, differences in performance by system membership were relatively small compared to differences across states and geography.ConclusionA growing share of physicians is part of a health system from 2012 to 2016. Providers in health systems are not delivering primary care more efficiently than non-system providers for the commercially insured.

Project description:ImportanceRacial/ethnic disparities in health care use and clinical outcomes for behavioral health disorders, including psychosis, are well documented, but less is known about these disparities during the period leading up to first-episode psychosis (FEP).ObjectiveTo describe the racial/ethnic disparities in behavioral health care use and prescription drug use of children and young adults before the diagnosis of FEP.Design, setting, and participantsAn observational cohort study was conducted using medical and prescription drug claims from January 1, 2007, to September 30, 2015, obtained from Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database, a commercial claims database augmented with race/ethnicity and socioeconomic variables. Data analysis was performed from February 6, 2018, to October 10, 2020. First-episode psychosis was determined by the presence of psychosis diagnoses on claims for at least 1 hospitalization or 2 outpatient events, with a continuous enrollment requirement of at least 2 years before the first diagnosis. Participants included 3017 Black, Hispanic, or White patients who were continually enrolled in commercial insurance plans and received an FEP diagnosis between the ages of 10 and 21 years.Main outcomes and measuresRace/ethnicity was determined from a commercial claims database. Rates of inpatient admission, emergency department presentation, and outpatient visits (including psychotherapy), behavioral health disorder diagnoses, and antipsychotic/antidepressant prescription fills were determined for the year before FEP. Race/ethnicity was also obtained from Optum's claims database. With use of multivariable logistic regression, results were adjusted for covariates including estimated household income, age, sex, and geographic division in the US.ResultsOf the 3017 patients with FEP, 643 Black or Hispanic patients (343 [53.3%] Black, 300 [46.7%] Hispanic, 324 [50.4%] male, mean [SD] age, 17.2 [2.76] years) were less likely than 2374 White patients (1210 [51.0%] male, mean age, 17.0 [2.72] years) to receive comorbid behavioral health disorder diagnoses in the year before the diagnosis of FEP (410 [63.8%] vs 1806 [76.1%], χ2 = 39.3; P < .001). Except for emergency care, behavioral health care use rates were lower in Black and Hispanic patients vs White patients (424 [65.9%] vs 1868 [78.7%]; χ2 = 45.0; P < .001), particularly for outpatient visits with behavioral health care professionals (232 [36.1%] vs 1236 [52.1%]; χ2 = 51.7; P < .001). After adjustment for socioeconomic covariates, behavioral health care use rates (68.9% vs 79.2%; P < .001), outpatient visits with behavioral health professionals (37.7% vs 51.2%; P < .001), and other outcomes remained significantly lower for Black and Hispanic patients vs White patients.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this study extend existing research findings of well-known racial/ethnic disparities in the population of patients who are diagnosed with FEP. These differences were apparent in young patients with continuous commercial health insurance and after controlling for household income. Providing equal access to preventive outpatient behavioral health care may increase opportunities for timely detection of psychotic symptoms and early intervention and improve differential outcomes after FEP.

Project description:Importance:To achieve the World Health Organization goal of viral hepatitis elimination by 2030, it is important to estimate current rates of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) diagnosis and treatment. Objective:To provide an accurate accounting of the number of patients with CHB aged 6 years or older who have not yet been diagnosed in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study used the commercial US Truven Health MarketScan Database (138 634 154 privately insured individuals in January 2007 to December 2014) to identify patients with CHB diagnosis and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to estimate the actual number of privately insured persons with CHB. Based on sex and age distribution derived from the US Census Bureau, we calculated the total population with CHB and the proportion of those who remained undiagnosed among the 198 073 302 privately insured individuals. Next, we identified diagnosed CHB patients who received 1 or more prescription for CHB medications to calculate the treatment rate for those with severe disease states, such as cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, that would warrant treatment. Analyses were performed from October 2017 to January 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures:The rate and number of patients with CHB who remained undiagnosed and treatment rates for patients with CHB who have cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma. Results:Among the 198 073 302 privately insured individuals (48.55% male; 15.52% aged 6-17 years; 84.48% aged ≥18 years), there were 511 029 (95% CI, 317 733-704 325) individuals with CHB, but only 95 075 of these had been diagnosed, yielding a diagnosis rate of only 18.60% (95% CI, 13.50%-29.92%), meaning that 81.40% (95% CI, 70.08%-86.50%) were undiagnosed. The treatment rates were 34.79% (95% CI, 33.31%-36.27%) for those with cirrhosis and 48.64% (95% CI, 45.59%-51.69%) for those with hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, only approximately 1 in 5 privately insured patients with CHB had been diagnosed. Only one-third of patients with CHB who had cirrhosis and one-half who had hepatocellular carcinoma received antiviral therapy. Further efforts are needed to improve the current situation of poor connection to care for patients with CHB, especially for those with advanced liver disease.