A Review of Price Transparency Policy and Evaluation of Hospital Compliance in Orthopedic Sports Medicine.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Schultz K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8361591 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule, effective January 1, 2021, requires hospitals to post online a machine-readable file that includes payer-specific negotiated commercial prices for all services. The regulation aims to improve the affordability of hospital care by promoting price competition. However, a low compliance level among hospitals would compromise the operational effectiveness of this regulation. Understanding hospitals' compliance status to the regulation has important implications for its enforcement effort and effectiveness assessment.ObjectiveTo analyze nationwide hospitals' compliance status to the Hospital Price Transparency Rule.DesignCross-sectional observational study.ParticipantsA total of 3558 Medicare-certified general acute-care hospitals were examined.Main measuresA binary compliance rating was generated by using data collected by Turquoise Health. "Noncompliance" means that no machine-readable file was posted or the posted file contains no commercial negotiated prices. "Compliance" means that a machine-readable file was posted with commercial negotiated prices for at least one insurance plan.Key resultsAs of June 1, 2021, 55% of the 3558 Medicare-certified general acute-care hospitals we examined had not posted a machine-readable file containing commercial negotiated prices. Wide variations of compliance existed across states and hospital referral regions. A hospital's compliance status is strongly associated with the average compliance status of peer hospitals in the same market. Hospitals with greater IT preparedness, for-profit hospitals, system-affiliated hospitals, large hospitals, and non-urban hospitals had greater compliance. More concentrated hospital markets had greater average compliance.ConclusionsHospitals take into consideration the behavior of their peers in the same market when making price disclosure decisions. Compliant hospitals are likely to have better IT preparedness, more financial resources and personnel expertise to mitigate the cost required for the implementation of the Price Transparency Rule. The compliance cost, therefore, might be a barrier for some hospitals.
| S-EPMC8667537 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGlobal spending on health was continuing to rise over the past 20 years. To reduce the growth rates, alleviate information asymmetry, and improve the efficiency of healthcare markets, global health systems have initiated price and quality transparency tools in the hospital industry in the last two decades. OBJECTIVE : The objective of this review is to synthesize whether, to what extent, and how hospital price and quality transparency tools affected 1) the price of healthcare procedures and services, 2) the payments of consumers, and 3) the premium of health insurance plans bonding with hospital networks.MethodsA literature search of EMBASE, Web of Science, Econlit, Scopus, Pubmed, CINAHL, and PsychINFO was conducted, from inception to Oct 31, 2021. Reference lists and tracked citations of retrieved articles were hand-searched. Study characteristics were extracted, and included studies were scored through a risk of bias assessment framework. This systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO with registration No. CRD42022319070.ResultsOf 2157 records identified, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. Near 40 percent of studies focused on hospital quality transparency tools, and more than 90 percent of studies were from the US. Hospital price transparency reduced the price of laboratory and imaging tests except for office-visit services. Hospital quality transparency declined the level or growth rates of healthcare spending, while it adversely and significantly raised the price of healthcare services and consumers' payment in higher-ranked or rated facilities, which was referred to as the reputation premium in the healthcare industry. Hospital quality transparency not only leveraged private insurers bonding with a higher-rated hospital network to increase premiums, but also induced their anticipated pricing behaviors.ConclusionHospital price and quality transparency was not effective as expected. Future research should explore the understudied consequences of hospital quality transparency programs, such as the reputation/rating premium and its policy intervention.
| S-EPMC9749158 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePrice transparency regulations aim to help patients make informed decisions about medical care, but enforcing these rules is a policy challenge. There may be an association between financial penalties and hospital compliance for enforcing price transparency regulations.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between financial penalties and acute care hospital compliance with the 2021 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Price Transparency Rule.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study uses an instrumental variable design to evaluate the responses of 4377 acute care hospitals in the US operating in 2021 and 2022 to changes in financial penalties in the context of a federal rule requiring hospitals to disclose privately negotiated prices.ExposureChanges in noncompliance penalties between 2021 and 2022 based on a nonlinear function of bed counts.Main outcomes and measuresWhether hospitals publicly posted a machine-readable file with private, payer-specific negotiated prices at the service-code level. Negative controls were used to address confounding.ResultsThe final sample included 4377 hospitals. Compliance increased from 70.4% (n = 3082) in 2021 to 87.7% (n = 3841) in 2022, with 90.2% of hospitals (n = 3948) reporting prices in at least 1 year. Noncompliance penalties increased from $109 500/y in 2021 to a mean (SD) of $510 976 ($534 149)/y in 2022. Penalties in 2022 were substantial, averaging 0.49% of total hospital revenue, 0.53% of total hospital costs, and 1.3% of total employee wages. Compliance increases were significantly positively correlated with penalty increases: a $500 000 increase in penalty was associated with a 2.9-percentage point (95% CI, 1.7-4.2 percentage points; P < .001) increase in compliance. Results were robust to controlling for observable hospital characteristics. No associations were found for preperiod (2021) compliance or ranges of bed counts where penalties do not vary.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of 4377 hospitals, compliance with the CMS Price Transparency Rule was associated with increased financial penalties. These findings are relevant for the enforcement of other regulations designed to promote transparency in health care.
| S-EPMC10308252 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9175070 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Concern has been raised about the effectiveness of the Hospital Price Transparency Rule to facilitate a clear understanding of health care prices due to poor reporting by hospitals. However, the relationship between what services the hospital provides and what prices they report is not clear. We assessed reported prices in the Turquoise Health database and compared them at the hospital level with the CMS Provider of Services File to identify if a shoppable service was provided at a hospital. We found significant mismatch between the hospital prices being reported and the services being provided. For example, 56% of hospitals providing at least 1 shoppable service that requires public price reporting did not report any prices. Of hospitals reporting prices, most hospitals (66%) reported prices for only a portion of the services they provide. In addition, 12% of hospitals reported prices for services they do not provide. Only 6% of hospitals had complete concordance with price reporting and services they actually provide. Current compliance enforcement and penalties do not appear to be adequate to achieve the goals of the Hospital Price Transparency Rule.
| S-EPMC11363865 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9636618 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe American Board of Medical Specialties recognized Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) for subspecialty certification in 2016, with the first certification exam in 2019. To address the need for exam preparatory materials, we designed and evaluated a novel PHM board review course that was offered both in-person and online.MethodsCourse content was based on the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) PHM certifying exam outline. Course objectives were developed from published PHM core competencies and the 2012 ABP general pediatrics content objectives. National experts served as faculty, presenting didactic sessions, and contributing to a question bank for high-yield review. For program evaluation, we applied the Kirkpatrick Model, evaluating estimated exam pass rates (Level 4), participant learning (Level 2) via post-presentation practice questions, and participants' ratings of presenters (via five-point Likert scale) and satisfaction (Level 1).ResultsThere were 112 in-person and 144 online participants with estimated pass rates of 89 and 93%, respectively. The mean correct response for the post-presentation knowledge questions was 84%. Faculty effectiveness ratings ranged from 3.81 to 4.96 (median score 4.60). Strengths included the pace of the course, question bank, and printed syllabus. Suggestions for improvement included question bank expansion, focus on "testable" points rather than general information, and challenges with long days of didactic presentations.ConclusionsThis novel PHM board review course demonstrated effectiveness. Hospitalists preferred focused "testable" information, an active learning environment, and a robust question bank. Future preparatory courses should consider including more opportunities for practice questions, focused content review, and learner engagement.
| S-EPMC9675241 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMedicine price transparency initiatives provide public or government on information about the product's prices and the components that may influence the prices, such as volume and product quality. In Malaysia, medicine price transparency has become part of the government's strategies in ensuring adequate, continuous and equitable access to quality, safe, effective and affordable medicines. Since the effect of medicine price transparency depend critically on how prices are presented, this study aims to evaluate the stakeholders' perspective of medicine price transparency practice in the private healthcare system in Malaysia.MethodsThis study was conducted as face-to-face, semi-structured interview. Respondents from private pharmaceutical industries, community pharmacists, general practitioners, private hospital pharmacists, governments, academicians and senior pharmacist were recruited using purposive sampling. Using phenomenological study approach, interviews were conducted, and audio recorded with their consent. Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis with Atlas.ti 8 software and categorised as strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT).ResultsA total of 28 respondents were interviewed. There was a mixed perception regarding the price transparency implementation in Malaysia's private healthcare settings. The potential strengths include it will provide price standardization, reduce price manipulation and competition, hence allowing the industry players to focus more on patient-care services. Moreover, the private stakeholders were concerned that the practice may affect stakeholders' business and marketing strategy, reduce profit margin, increase general practitioner's consultation fees and causing impact on geographical discrepancies. The practice was viewed as an opportunity to disseminate the truth price information to consumer and strengthen collaboration between healthcare industries and Ministry of Health although this may become a threat that affect the business survival.ConclusionPrice transparency initiatives would benefit the pharmaceutical industries, consumer and countries, but it needs to be implemented appropriately to prevent price manipulation, market monopoly, and business closure. Future study may want to evaluate the impact of the initiatives on the business in the industry.
| S-EPMC7335703 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesPrice transparency is gaining importance as families' portion of health care costs rise. We describe (1) online price transparency data for pediatric care on children's hospital Web sites and state-based price transparency Web sites, and (2) the consumer experience of obtaining an out-of-pocket estimate from children's hospitals for a common procedure.MethodsFrom 2015 to 2016, we audited 45 children's hospital Web sites and 38 state-based price transparency Web sites, describing availability and characteristics of health care prices and personalized cost estimate tools. Using secret shopper methodology, we called children's hospitals and submitted online estimate requests posing as a self-paying family requesting an out-of-pocket estimate for a tonsillectomy-adenoidectomy.ResultsEight children's hospital Web sites (18%) listed prices. Twelve (27%) provided personalized cost estimate tool (online form n = 5 and/or phone number n = 9). All 9 hospitals with a phone number for estimates provided the estimated patient liability for a tonsillectomy-adenoidectomy (mean $6008, range $2622-$9840). Of the remaining 36 hospitals without a dedicated price estimate phone number, 21 (58%) provided estimates (mean $7144, range $1200-$15 360). Two of 4 hospitals with online forms provided estimates. Fifteen (39%) state-based Web sites distinguished between prices for pediatric and adult care. One had a personalized cost estimate tool.ConclusionsMeaningful prices for pediatric care were not widely available online through children's hospital or state-based price transparency Web sites. A phone line or online form for price estimates were effective strategies for hospitals to provide out-of-pocket price information. Opportunities exist to improve pediatric price transparency.
| S-EPMC6345274 | biostudies-literature
Project description:For this literature review, medical literature data bases were searched for studies on patient compliance after genetic risk assessment. The review focused on conditions where secondary or tertiary preventive options exist, namely cancer syndromes (BRCA-related cancer, HNPCC/colon cancer), hemochromatosis, thrombophilia, smoking cessation, and obesity. As a counterpart, patient compliance was assessed regarding medication adherence and medical advice in some of the most epidemiologically important conditions (including high blood pressure, metabolic syndrome, and coronary heart disease) after receiving medical advice based on nongenetic risk information or a combination of genetic and nongenetic risk information. In the majority of studies based on genetic risk assessments, patients were confronted with predictive rather than diagnostic genetic profiles. Most of the studies started from a knowledge base around 10 years ago when DNA testing was at an early stage, limited in scope and specificity, and costly. The major result is that overall compliance of patients after receiving a high-risk estimate from genetic testing for a given condition is high. However, significant behavior change does not take place just because the analyte is "genetic." Many more factors play a role in the complex process of behavioral tuning. Without adequate counseling and guidance, patients may interpret risk estimates of predictive genetic testing with an increase in fear and anxiety.
| S-EPMC3890067 | biostudies-literature