Assessment of Out-of-Network Billing for Privately Insured Patients Receiving Care in In-Network Hospitals.
Ontology highlight
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
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, the issue of out-of-network billing for privately insured patients has been highlighted as a source of unexpected out-of-pocket charges for patients, even in the setting of an in-network primary surgeon. The Congress recently passed the No Surprises Act to curtail these practices. However, the new law contains exceptions, and its regulatory system has yet to be established. As one of the most frequently performed major surgical procedures, hysterectomy represents a significant exposure to out-of-network bills among nonelderly females in the United States.ObjectiveTo describe the extent and nature of out-of-network bills at the time of hysterectomy among privately insured patients in the context of the recently passed No Surprises Act.Study designWe performed a retrospective cohort study of women aged 18 to 64 years who underwent simple hysterectomy from 2008 to 2018 with an in-network primary surgeon in the IBM Watson Marketscan claims database, which includes data from over 350 different payers. We identified out-of-network claims for facility or professional services and analyzed the frequency, size, and source of the payments. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess for patient, procedure, and facility characteristics associated with the risk of out-of-network claims.ResultsWe identified 585,223 hysterectomy cases meeting all the inclusion criteria, and they were evenly split between inpatient (49.6%) and outpatient (50.4%) procedures. Overall, 8.8% of cases included at least 1 out-of-network claim, with median out-of-network expenditures of $553 for inpatient procedures and $438 for outpatient procedures. Compared with professional out-of-network claims, facility out-of-network claims were less common (2.3% vs 7.4%) but far greater in the amount billed (median $8,307 vs $400 inpatient, $3,281 vs $407 outpatient). Among the professional claims, those from midlevel surgical assistants were most frequently out-of-network when present (13.8% inpatient; 20.0% outpatient), whereas out-of-network claims from anesthesia were most common overall and largest (median $890 inpatient, $1,021 outpatient) when present. In a multivariable model, older age, increasing comorbidity, and complications during the stay were associated with higher odds of any out-of-network claim. In contrast, the risk of facility out-of-network claims was more strongly associated with the facility region and the surgical approach, with the highest odds for cases in the North Central region and those using robotic approach.ConclusionOut-of-network bills for privately insured patients at the time of hysterectomy occurred in 8.8% of cases. Approximately one-quarter of these included out-of-network facility claims tended to have higher payments than out-of-network professional claims and may not be prevented by the No Surprises Act. Gynecologic surgeons should be aware of the potential out-of-network charges for ancillary services at the time of surgery, particularly the network status of the facility, to provide maximal transparency and financial protection to our patients.
| S-EPMC10150992 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePrevious research has shown relatively high use of out-of-network mental health providers, although direct comparisons with rates among general health providers are not available. We aimed to (1) estimate the proportion of privately insured adults using an out-of-network mental health provider in the past 12 months; (2) compare rates of out-of-network mental health provider use with out-of-network general medical use; (3) determine reasons for out-of-network mental health care use.MethodsA nationally representative sample of privately insured US adults was surveyed using the internet in February 2011. Screener questions identified if the participant had used either a general medical physician or a mental health professional within the past 12 months. Respondents using either type of out-of-network provider completed a 10-minute survey on details of their out-of-network care experiences.ResultsEighteen percent of individuals who used a mental health provider reported at least 1 contact with an out-of-network mental health provider, compared to 6.8% who used a general health provider (P<0.01). The most common reasons for choosing an out-of-network mental health provider were the physician was recommended (26.1%), continuity with a previously known provider (23.7%), and the perceived skill of the provider (19.3%).ConclusionsOut-of-network provider use is more likely in mental health care than general health care. Most respondents chose an out-of-network mental health provider based on perceived provider quality or continuing care with a previously known provider rather than issues related to the availability of an in-network provider, convenient location, or appointment wait time.
| S-EPMC4707657 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7042888 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7720710 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While out-of-network or potential "surprise" billing has garnered increasing attention, particularly in emergency department and inpatient settings, few national studies have examined out-of-network care overall or in other settings. We examined out-of-network spending and use among two large nationwide populations with employer-sponsored insurance. In a primary sample of 27,883,040 people in data for 2008-16 from the Truven MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database, we found that the unadjusted share of total spending that occurred out of network decreased from 7.0 percent in 2008-10 to 6.1 percent in 2014-16, an adjusted average decline of 0.10 percentage points per year. Using a secondary sample of 13,093,209 people in the Health Care Cost Institute database provided qualitatively similar results, including when provider charges (upper bound for balance billing) were used in place of observed out-of-network prices. In subgroup analyses of the primary sample, the share of out-of-network spending was stable or declined among all segments of care except hospitalist services, pathologist services, and laboratory tests across the study period. Out-of-network use demonstrated comparable patterns. Prices were higher out of network than in network. Policy makers should focus their efforts on protecting consumers from balance billing or potential surprise billing in clinical scenarios where patients often have little choice over their provider.
| S-EPMC8299541 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7265118 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceHealth care professionals have shown significant interest in nonoperative management for uncomplicated appendicitis, but long-term population-level data are lacking.ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of nonoperatively managed appendicitis against appendectomy.Design, setting, and participantsThis national retrospective cohort study used claims data from a private insurance database to compare patients admitted with uncomplicated appendicitis from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2014, undergoing appendectomy vs nonoperative management. Coarsened exact matching was applied before multivariate analysis to reduce imbalance between groups. Data were analyzed from February 12 through May 1, 2018.ExposuresAppendectomy (control arm) or nonoperative management (treatment arm).Main outcomes and measuresShort-term primary clinical outcomes included emergency department visits, hospital readmission, abdominal abscess, and Clostridium difficile infections. Long-term primary clinical outcomes were small-bowel obstructions, incisional hernias, and appendiceal cancers. Nonoperative management failure was defined by hospital readmission with appendicitis diagnosis and an appendicitis-associated operation or procedure. Secondary outcomes included number of follow-up visits, length and cost of index hospitalization, and total cost of appendicitis-associated care. Covariates included age, sex, region, insurance plan type, admission year, and Charlson comorbidity index.ResultsOf 58 329 patients with uncomplicated appendicitis (52.7% men; mean [SD] age, 31.9 [16.5] years), 55 709 (95.5%) underwent appendectomy and 2620 (4.5%) underwent nonoperative management. Patients in the nonoperative management group were more likely to have appendicitis-associated readmissions (adjusted odds ratio, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.63-2.77; P < .001) and to develop an abscess (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.05-1.92; P = .02). Patients in the nonoperative management group required more follow-up visits in the year after index admission (unadjusted mean [SD], 1.6 [6.3] vs 0.3 [1.4] visits; adjusted +1.11 visits; P < .001) and had lower index hospitalization cost (unadjusted mean [SD], $11 502 [$9287] vs $13 551 [$10 160]; adjusted -$2117, P < .001), but total cost of appendicitis care was higher when follow-up care was considered (unadjusted, $14 934 [$31 122] vs $14 186 [$10 889]; adjusted +$785; P = .003). During a mean (SD) of 3.2 (1.7) years of follow-up, failure of nonoperative management occurred in 101 patients (3.9%); median time to recurrence was 42 days (interquartile range, 8-125 days). Among the patients who experienced treatment failure, 44 did so within 30 days.Conclusions and relevanceAccording to results of this study, nonoperative management failure rates were lower than previously reported. Nonoperative management was associated with higher rates of abscess, readmission, and higher overall cost of care. These data suggest that nonoperative management may not be the preferred first-line therapy for all patients with uncomplicated appendicitis.
| S-EPMC6439669 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Medical care for children with cancer is complex and expensive, and represents a large financial burden for families around the world. We estimated the medical cost of cancer care for children under the age of 18, using administrative records of the universe of children with private insurance in Chile in the period 2007-2018, based on a sample of 3853 observations. We analyzed total cost and out-of-pocket spending by patients' characteristics, type of cancer, and by service. Children with cancer had high annual medical costs, USD 32,287 on average for 2018. Costs were higher for the younger children in the sample. The vast majority of the cost was driven by inpatient hospital care for all types of cancer. The average total cost increased 20% in real terms over the period of study, while out-of-pocket expenses increased almost 29%. Private insurance beneficiaries faced a significant economic burden associated with medical treatment of a child with cancer. Interventions that reduce hospitalizations, as well as systemwide reforms that incorporate maximum out-of-pocket payments and prevent catastrophic expenditures, can contribute to alleviating the financial burden of childhood cancer.
| S-EPMC8267683 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesPublished cost estimates for cystic fibrosis (CF) are based on older data and do not reflect increased use of specialty drugs in recent years. We assessed recent trends in healthcare expenditures for CF patients in the United States (US) with employer-sponsored health insurance.MethodsThe study is a retrospective analysis of claims data for privately insured individuals aged 0-64 years who were continuously enrolled in non-capitated plans for at least 1 calendar year during 2010-2016. Mean annual expenditures during a calendar year were calculated for individuals who met a claims-based CF case definition. Average annual growth rates were calculated through linear regression of the natural logarithm of annual expenditures.ResultsThe annual CF prevalence was 1.1-1.4 per 10 000 adults and 2.9-3.0 per 10 000 children. Average spending adjusted for inflation nearly doubled from roughly $67 000 per patient in 2010 and 2011 to approximately $131 000 per patient in 2016. Inflation-adjusted spending on outpatient and inpatient care increased by 0.5% and 2.5% per year, respectively, whereas pharmaceutical spending increased by 20.2% per year. Virtually all of the growth in pharmaceutical spending was accounted for by spending on specialty drugs; inflation-adjusted spending on other medications increased by 1.3% per year. The annual growth rate in pharmaceutical spending rose by 33.1% during 2014-2016, the years during which lumacaftor/ivacaftor was introduced.ConclusionsPer-patient expenditures for privately-insured patients with CF almost doubled during 2010-2016; specialty drugs were largely responsible for this increase, with a major contribution from new, genotype-targeted CFTR modulator medications.
| S-EPMC6688469 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7758828 | biostudies-literature