Dataset Information

Association of a national insurer's reference-based pricing program and choice of imaging facility, spending, and utilization.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine the association of a national insurer's reference-based pricing (RBP), program for outpatient advanced imaging-a benefit design to encourage patients to choose lower-price facilities.

Data source/study setting

Administrative and medical claims data for three self-insured employers that introduced RBP and a comparison group without RBP.

Study design

Difference-in-difference comparison of pre-RBP (2014) and post-RBP (2015-6) care between intervention and comparison groups.

Data collection/extraction method

We identified 137 680 imaging procedures (4602 intervention group; 133 078 comparison group) in 2014-2016.

Principal findings

In the first post-RBP year (2015), there was no change in choice of facility; by the second year, RBP-exposed enrollees were 21.9 pp (95% CI: 18.5, 25.3) more likely to choose a lower-priced facility and net prices were $101.05 (95% CI: -$130.65, -$71.46), a difference of 8.1 percent lower. RBP was associated with higher patient out-of-pocket spending in the first post-RBP year ($31.82; 95% CI: $10.91, $52.73). There was no change in utilization, and higher-priced providers did not lower prices in the postperiod. Net savings represented 0.3 percent of outpatient spending.

Conclusions

Reference-based pricing for advanced imaging was associated with a shift to lower-priced facilities, but net impact on outpatient spending was modest. Patients paid increased out-of-pocket costs, though the amount declined after the first year of the program.

SUBMITTER: Sinaiko AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7240778 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceCareFirst, the largest commercial insurer in the mid-Atlantic Region of the United States, runs a medical home program focusing on financial incentives for primary care practices and care coordination for high-risk patients. From 2013 to 2015, CareFirst extended the program to Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries in participating practices. If the model extension improved quality while reducing spending, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services could expand the program to Medicare beneficiaries broadly.ObjectiveTo test whether extending CareFirst's program to Medicare FFS patients improves care processes and reduces hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and spending.Design, setting, and participantsThis difference-in-differences analysis compared outcomes for roughly 35 000 Medicare FFS patients attributed to 52 intervention practices (grouped by CareFirst into 14 "medical panels") to outcomes for 69 000 Medicare patients attributed to 42 matched comparison panels during a 1-year baseline period and 2.5-year intervention at Maryland primary care practices.Main outcomes and measuresHospitalizations (all-cause and ambulatory-care sensitive), emergency department visits, Medicare Part A and B spending, and 3 quality-of-care process measures: ambulatory care within 14 days of a hospital stay, cholesterol testing for those with ischemic vascular disease, and a composite measure for those with diabetes.InterventionsCareFirst hired nurses who worked with patients' usual primary care practitioners to coordinate care for 3656 high-risk Medicare patients. CareFirst paid panels rewards for meeting cost and quality targets for their Medicare patients and advised panels on how to meet these targets based on analyses of claims data.ResultsOn average, each of the 14 intervention panels had 9.3 primary care practitioners and was attributed 2202 Medicare FFS patients in the baseline period. The panels' attributed Medicare patients were, on average, 73.8 years old, 59.2% female, and 85.1% white. The extension of CareFirst's program to Medicare patients was not statistically associated with improvements in any outcomes, either for the full Medicare population or for a high-risk subgroup in which impacts were expected to be largest. For the full population, the difference-in-differences estimates were 1.4 hospitalizations per 1000 patients per quarter (P = .54; 90% CI, -2.1 to 5.0), -2.5 outpatient ED visits per 1000 patients per quarter (P = .26; 90% CI, -6.2 to 1.1), and -$1 per patient per month in Medicare Part A and B spending (P = .98; 90% CI, -$40 to $39). For hospitalizations and Medicare spending, the 90% CIs did not span CareFirst's expected impacts. Hospitalizations for the intervention group declined by 10% from baseline year to the final 18 months of the intervention, but this was matched by similar declines in the comparison group.Conclusion and relevanceThe extension of CareFirst's program to Medicare did not measurably improve quality-of-care processes or reduce service use or spending for Medicare patients. Further program refinement and testing would be needed to support scaling the program more broadly to Medicare patients.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough neighborhoods are thought to be an important health determinant, evidence for the relationship between neighborhood poverty and health care use is limited, as prior studies have largely used observational data without an experimental design.ObjectiveTo examine whether housing policies that reduce exposure to high-poverty neighborhoods were associated with differences in long-term hospital use among adults and children.Design, setting, and participantsExploratory analysis of the Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration Program, a randomized social experiment conducted in 5 US cities. From 1994 to 1998, 4604 families in public housing were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: a control condition, a traditional Section 8 voucher toward rental costs in the private market, or a voucher that could only be used in low-poverty neighborhoods. Participants were linked to all-payer hospital discharge data (1995 through 2014 or 2015) and Medicaid data (1999 through 2009). The final follow-up date ranged from 11 to 21 years after randomization.ExposuresReceipt of a traditional or low-poverty voucher vs control group.Main outcomes and measuresRates of hospitalizations and hospital days, and hospital spending.ResultsAmong 4602 eligible individuals randomized as adults, 4072 (88.5%) were linked to health data (mean age, 33 years [SD, 9.0 years]; 98% female; median follow-up, 11 years). There were no significant differences in primary outcomes among adults randomized to receive a voucher compared with the control group (unadjusted hospitalization rate, 14.0 vs 14.7 per 100 person-years, adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.95 [95% CI, 0.84-1.08; P?=?.45]; hospital days, 62.8 vs 67.0 per 100 person-years; IRR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.77-1.13; P?=?.46]; yearly spending, $2075 vs $1977; adjusted difference, -$129 [95% CI, -$497 to $239; P?=?.49]). Among 11?290 eligible individuals randomized as children, 9118 (80.8%) were linked to health data (mean age, 8 years [SD, 4.6 years]; 49% female; median follow-up, 11 years). Receipt of a housing voucher during childhood was significantly associated with lower hospitalization rates (6.3 vs 7.3 per 100 person-years; IRR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.73-0.99; P?=?.03]) and yearly inpatient spending ($633 vs $785; adjusted difference, -$143 [95% CI, -$256 to -$31; P?=?.01]) and no significant difference in hospital days (25.7 vs 28.8 per 100 person-years; IRR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.77-1.11; P?=?.41]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this exploratory analysis of a randomized housing voucher intervention, adults who received a housing voucher did not experience significant differences in hospital use or spending. Receipt of a voucher during childhood was significantly associated with lower rates of hospitalization and less inpatient spending during long-term follow-up.

Project description:Background and objectivesExternal reference pricing (ERP) is a price regulation tool widely used by policy makers in the European Union (EU) Member States (MS) to contain drug cost, although in theory, it may contribute to modulate prices up and down. The objective of this article was to summarise and discuss the main findings of part of a large project conducted for the European Commission ('External reference pricing of medicinal products: simulation-based considerations for cross-country coordination'; see www.ec.europa.eu/health/healthcare/docs/erp_reimbursement_medicinal_products_en.pdf) that aimed to provide an overview of ERP systems, both on processes and potential issues in 31 European countries (28 EU MS, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland).MethodsA systematic structured literature review was conducted to identify and characterise the use of ERP in the selected countries, to describe its impact on the prices of pharmaceuticals, and to discuss the possible cross-country coordination issues in EU MS. This research was complemented with a consultation of competent authorities' and international organisations' representatives to address the main issues or uncertainties identified through the literature review.ResultsAll selected countries applied ERP, except the United Kingdom and Sweden. Twenty-three countries used ERP as the main systematic criterion for pricing. In the majority of European countries, ERP was based on legislated pricing rules with different levels of accuracy. ERP was applied either for all marketed drugs or for specific categories of medicines; it was mainly used for publicly reimbursed medicines. The number of reference countries included in the basket varied from 1 to 31. There was a great variation in the calculation methods used to compute the price; 15 countries used the average price, 7 countries used the lowest price, and 7 countries used other calculation methods. Reported limitations of ERP application included the lack of reliable sources of price information, price heterogeneity, exchange rate volatility, and hidden discounts. Spill-over effect and downward price convergence have often been mentioned as ERP's consequences leading to pricing strategies from pharmaceutical companies.ConclusionWhile ERP is widely used in Europe, processes and availability of price information vary from one country to another, thus limiting ERP implementation. Furthermore, ERP spill-over effect is a major concern of pharmaceutical firms leading to implementation of the so-called 'launch sequence strategies'.

Project description:BackgroundThe 340B Drug Pricing Program entitles qualifying hospitals to discounts on outpatient drugs, increasing the profitability of drug administration. By tying the program eligibility of hospitals to their Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) adjustment percentage, which reflects the proportion of hospitalized patients who are low-income, the program is intended to expand resources for underserved populations but provides no direct incentives for hospitals to use financial gains to enhance care for low-income patients.MethodsWe used Medicare claims and a regression-discontinuity design, taking advantage of the threshold for program eligibility among general acute care hospitals (DSH percentage, >11.75%), to isolate the effects of the program on hospital-physician consolidation (i.e., acquisition of physician practices or employment of physicians by hospitals) and on the outpatient administration of parenteral drugs by hospital-owned facilities in three specialties in which parenteral drugs are frequently used. For low-income patients, we also assessed the effects of the program on the provision of care by hospitals and on mortality.ResultsHospital eligibility for the 340B Program was associated with 2.3 more hematologist-oncologists practicing in facilities owned by the hospital, or 230% more hematologist-oncologists than expected in the absence of the program (P=0.02), and with 0.9 (or 900%) more ophthalmologists per hospital (P=0.08) and 0.1 (or 33%) more rheumatologists per hospital (P=0.84). Program eligibility was associated with significantly higher numbers of parenteral drug claims billed by hospitals for Medicare patients in hematology-oncology (90% higher, P=0.001) and ophthalmology (177% higher, P=0.03) but not rheumatology (77% higher, P=0.12). Program eligibility was associated with lower proportions of low-income patients in hematology-oncology and ophthalmology and with no significant differences in hospital provision of safety-net or inpatient care for low-income groups or in mortality among low-income residents of the hospitals' local service areas.ConclusionsThe 340B Program has been associated with hospital-physician consolidation in hematology-oncology and with more hospital-based administration of parenteral drugs in hematology-oncology and ophthalmology. Financial gains for hospitals have not been associated with clear evidence of expanded care or lower mortality among low-income patients. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and others.).

Project description:ImportanceMedicare recently concluded a national voluntary payment demonstration, Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) model 3, in which skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) assumed accountability for patients' Medicare spending for 90 days from initial SNF admission. There is little evidence on outcomes associated with this novel payment model.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of BPCI model 3 with spending, health care utilization, and patient outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries undergoing lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR).Design, setting, and participantsObservational difference-in-difference analysis using Medicare claims from 2013-2017 to evaluate the association of BPCI model 3 with outcomes for 80 648 patients undergoing LEJR. The preintervention period was from January 2013 through September 2013, which was 9 months prior to enrollment of the first BPCI cohort. The postintervention period extended from 3 months post-BPCI enrollment for each SNF through December 2017. BPCI SNFs were matched with control SNFs using propensity score matching on 2013 SNF characteristics.ExposuresAdmission to a BPCI model 3-participating SNF.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was institutional spending, a combination of postacute care and hospital Medicare-allowed payments. Additional outcomes included other categories of spending, changes in case mix, admission volume, home health use, length of stay, and hospital use within 90 days of SNF admission.ResultsThere were 448 BPCI SNFs with 18 870 LEJR episodes among 16 837 patients (mean [SD] age, 77.5 [9.4] years; 12 173 [72.3%] women) matched with 1958 control SNFs with 72 005 LEJR episodes among 63 811 patients (mean [SD] age, 77.6 [9.4] years; 46 072 [72.2%] women) in the preintervention and postintervention periods. Seventy-nine percent of matched BPCI SNFs were for-profit facilities, 85% were located in an urban area, and 85% were part of a larger corporate chain. There were no systematic changes in patient case mix or episode volume between BPCI-participating SNFs and controls during the program. Institutional spending decreased from $17 956 to $15 746 in BPCI SNFs and from $17 765 to $16 563 in matched controls, a differential decrease of 5.6% (-$1008 [95% CI, -$1603 to -$414]; P < .001). This decrease was related to a decline in SNF days per beneficiary (from 26.2 to 21.3 days in BPCI SNFs and from 26.3 to 23.4 days in matched controls; differential change, -2.0 days [95% CI, -2.9 to -1.1]). There was no significant change in mortality or 90-day readmissions.Conclusions and relevanceAmong Medicare patients undergoing lower extremity joint replacement from 2013-2017, the BPCI model 3 was significantly associated with a decrease in mean institutional spending on episodes initiated by admission to SNFs. Further research is needed to assess bundled payments in other clinical contexts.