Dataset Information

The Increasing Financial Burden of Outpatient Elective Surgery for the Privately Insured.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine temporal trends of OOP expenses, total payments, facility fees, and professional fees for outpatient surgery.

Summary background data

Approximately 48 million outpatient surgeries are performed annually with a limited financial understanding of these procedures. High OOP expenses may influence treatment decisions, delay care, and cause financial burden for patients.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with employer-sponsored insurance undergoing common outpatient surgical procedures (cholecystectomy, cataract surgery, meniscectomy, muscle/tendon procedures, and joint procedures) from 2011 to 2017. Total payments for surgical encounters paid by the insurer/employer and patient OOP expenses were calculated. We used multivariable linear regression to predict total payments and OOP expenses, with costs adjusted to the 2017 US dollar.

Results

We evaluated 5,261,295 outpatient surgeries (2011-2017). Total payments increased by 29%, with a 53% increase in facility fees and no change in professional fees. OOP expenses grew by 50%. After controlling for procedure type, procedures performed in ambulatory surgery centers conferred an additional $2019 in predicted total payments (95%CI:$2002-$2036) and $324 in OOP expenses (95%CI:$319-$328) compared to predicted cost for office-based procedures. Hospital-based procedures cost an additional $2649 in predicted total payments (95%CI:$2632-$2667) and $302 in predicted OOP expenses (95%CI:$297-$306) compared to office procedures.

Conclusion

Increases in outpatient surgery total payments were driven primarily by facility fees and OOP expenses. OOP expenses are rising faster than total payments, highlighting the transition of costs to patients. Healthcare cost reduction policies should consider the largest areas of spending growth such as facility fees and OOP expenses to minimize the financial burden placed on patients.

SUBMITTER: Billig JI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8015353 | 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 assess the appropriateness of outpatient antibiotic prescribing for privately insured children and non-elderly adults in the US using a comprehensive classification scheme of diagnosis codes in ICD-10-CM (international classification of diseases-clinical modification, 10th revision), which replaced ICD-9-CM in the US on 1 October 2015.DesignCross sectional study.SettingMarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database, 2016.Participants19.2 million enrollees aged 0-64 years.Main outcome measuresA classification scheme was developed that determined whether each of the 91 738 ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes "always," "sometimes," or "never" justified antibiotics. For each antibiotic prescription fill, this scheme was used to classify all diagnosis codes in claims during a look back period that began three days before antibiotic prescription fills and ended on the day fills occurred. The main outcome was the proportion of fills in each of four mutually exclusive categories: "appropriate" (associated with at least one "always" code during the look back period, "potentially appropriate" (associated with at least one "sometimes" but no "always" codes), "inappropriate" (associated only with "never" codes), and "not associated with a recent diagnosis code" (no codes during the look back period).ResultsThe cohort (n=19 203 264) comprised 14 571 944 (75.9%) adult and 9 935 791 (51.7%) female enrollees. Among 15 455 834 outpatient antibiotic prescription fills by the cohort, the most common antibiotics were azithromycin (2 931 242, 19.0%), amoxicillin (2 818 939, 18.2%), and amoxicillin-clavulanate (1 784 921, 11.6%). Among these 15 455 834 fills, 1 973 873 (12.8%) were appropriate, 5 487 003 (35.5%) were potentially appropriate, 3 592 183 (23.2%) were inappropriate, and 4 402 775 (28.5%) were not associated with a recent diagnosis code. Among the 3 592 183 inappropriate fills, 2 541 125 (70.7%) were written in office based settings, 222 804 (6.2%) in urgent care centers, and 168 396 (4.7%) in emergency departments. In 2016, 2 697 918 (14.1%) of the 19 203 264 enrollees filled at least one inappropriate antibiotic prescription, including 490 475 out of 4 631 320 children (10.6%) and 2 207 173 out of 14 571 944 adults (15.2%).ConclusionsAmong all outpatient antibiotic prescription fills by 19 203 264 privately insured US children and non-elderly adults in 2016, 23.2% were inappropriate, 35.5% were potentially appropriate, and 28.5% were not associated with a recent diagnosis code. Approximately 1 in 7 enrollees filled at least one inappropriate antibiotic prescription in 2016. The classification scheme could facilitate future efforts to comprehensively measure outpatient antibiotic appropriateness in the US, and it could be adapted for use in other countries that use ICD-10 codes.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To analyze utilization of, and payments for, pelvic organ prolapse procedures after the 2011 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) communication regarding transvaginal mesh. METHODS:This is a retrospective cohort study examining private claims from three insurance providers for inpatient and outpatient prolapse procedures from 2010 to 2013 in the Health Care Cost Institute. Primary outcomes were the change in utilization of prolapse procedures, with and without mesh, before and after the July 2011 FDA communication. Secondary outcomes were the changes in payments and reimbursements for these procedures. Utilization rates and payments were compared using generalized linear models and interrupted time-series analysis. RESULTS:Utilization of prolapse procedures decreased from 12.3 to 9.7 per 10,000 woman-years (P=.027) with a decrease of 30.7% (3.9 in 2010 to 2.7 in 2013, P=.05) in number of mesh procedures and 16.6% (8.4 in 2010 to 7.0 in 2013, P=.011) for nonmesh procedures. Quarterly utilization of mesh procedures was increasing before the FDA communication and then significantly declined after its release (slope=0.024 vs -0.025, P=.002). Nonmesh procedures, however, were already slightly decreasing before July 2011 and continued to decline at a more rapid pace after that time, although not significantly (slope=-0.004 vs -0.022, P=.47). Inpatient utilization decreased 52.2% (P=.002), whereas outpatient utilization increased 18.5% (P=.132). Payments for individual inpatient procedures, with and without mesh, increased by 12.0% ($8,315 in 2010 to $9,315 in 2013, P=.001) and 15.6% ($7,826 in 2010 to $9,048 in 2013, P=.005), respectively, whereas those for outpatient procedures increased by 41% ($4,961 in 2010 to $6,981 in 2013, P=.006) and 30% ($3,955 in 2010 to $5,149 in 2013, P=.004), respectively. CONCLUSION:Use of prolapse surgery declined during the study period. After the 2011 FDA communication regarding transvaginal mesh, there was a significant decrease in the utilization of procedures with mesh but not for those without mesh. A shift toward outpatient surgeries was observed, and payments for both individual inpatient and outpatient cases increased.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Individuals with paediatric-onset disabilities (PoDs) have complex healthcare needs and are susceptible to adverse health outcomes, which may impose a higher strain on healthcare resources. The burden of healthcare resource utilisation and costs attributed to the population of adults with PoDs is not clearly established. The objective here was to compare healthcare resource utilisation and costs between adults with versus without PoDs. DESIGN:Cohort. SETTING:Data were from the 2016 Optum Clinformatics Data Mart, a de-identified nationwide claims database of beneficiaries from a single private payer in the USA. PARTICIPANTS:International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes were used to identify beneficiaries with PoDs that were between 18 and 64 years of age. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Annual all-cause healthcare resource utilisation and total healthcare costs were compared between adults with and without PoDs before and after adjusting for sociodemographics and several costly non-communicable diseases. RESULTS:Adults with PoDs (n=121 446) had greater annual mean counts of service utilisation for all service types (eg, inpatient, outpatient, emergency visits) compared with adults without PoDs (n=5 415 475) before and after adjustments (all p<0.001). Adults with PoDs had greater unadjusted total standardised reimbursement costs (US$26 702 vs US$8464; mean difference=US$18 238; cost ratio (CR)=3.16; 95% CI=3.13 to 3.18) and total patient out-of-pocket costs (US$2226 vs US$1157; mean difference=US$1069; CR=1.88; 95%CI=1.86 to 1.89). After adjustments, total standardised reimbursement costs were 2.32 times higher (95% CI=2.30 to 2.34) and total patient out-of-pocket costs were 1.65 times higher (95% CI=1.64 to 1.66) compared with adults without PoDs. CONCLUSION:Adults with PoDs had greater healthcare utilisation and costs, even after accounting for costly diseases. Future research is needed to identify the cost drivers for adults with PoDs.