Dataset Information

Factors Associated with Compliance to the Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule: a National Landscape Study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The 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. OBJECTIVE:To analyze nationwide hospitals' compliance status to the Hospital Price Transparency Rule. DESIGN:Cross-sectional observational study. PARTICIPANTS:A total of 3558 Medicare-certified general acute-care hospitals were examined. MAIN MEASURES:A 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 RESULTS:As 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. CONCLUSIONS:Hospitals 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.

SUBMITTER: Jiang JX

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8667537 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:ImportancePatients with urologic diseases often experience financial toxicity, defined as high levels of financial burden and concern, after receiving care. The Price Transparency Final Rule, which requires hospitals to disclose both the commercial and cash prices for at least 300 services, was implemented to facilitate price shopping, decrease price dispersion, and lower health care costs.ObjectiveTo evaluate compliance with the Price Transparency Final Rule and to quantify variations in the price of urologic procedures among academic hospitals and by insurance class.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a cross-sectional study that determined the prices of 5 common urologic procedures among academic medical centers and by insurance class. Prices were obtained from the Turquoise Health Database on March 24, 2022. Academic hospitals were identified from the Association of American Medical Colleges website. The 5 most common urologic procedures were cystourethroscopy, prostate biopsy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, transurethral resection of the prostate, and ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy. Using the corresponding Current Procedural Terminology codes, the Turquoise Health Database was queried to identify the cash price, Medicare price, Medicaid price, and commercial insurance price for these procedures.ExposuresThe Price Transparency Final Rule, which went into effect January 1, 2021.Main outcomes and measuresVariability in procedure price among academic medical centers and by insurance class (Medicare, Medicaid, commercial, and cash price).ResultsOf 153 hospitals, only 20 (13%) listed a commercial price for all 5 procedures. The commercial price was reported most often for cystourethroscopy (86 hospitals [56%]) and least often for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (45 hospitals [29%]). The cash price was lower than the Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial price at 24 hospitals (16%). Prices varied substantially across hospitals for all 5 procedures. There were significant variations in the prices of cystoscopy (χ23 = 85.9; P = .001), prostate biopsy (χ23 = 64.6; P = .001), prostatectomy (χ23 = 24.4; P = .001), transurethral resection of the prostate (χ23 = 51.3; P = .001), and ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy (χ23 = 63.0; P = .001) by insurance type.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that, more than 1 year after the implementation of the Price Transparency Final Rule, there are still large variations in the prices of urologic procedures among academic hospitals and by insurance class. Currently, in certain situations, health care costs could be reduced if patients paid out of pocket. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services may improve price transparency by better enforcing penalties for noncompliance, increasing penalties, and ensuring that hospitals report prices in a way that is easy for patients to access and understand.

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.

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.

Project description:Medical costs in the United States have been increasing disproportionally to gross domestic product, raising concerns about the sustainability of U.S. healthcare expenditures. Care of patients with thyroid disease has been identified as an area of medicine where cost increases have been pronounced.The goals of this study were to identify potential drivers of the cost of hospitalization following thyroid surgery, and to understand which of these factors may be contributing to observed increases in cost from 2003 to 2011.A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of discharge data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database for all admissions following thyroid lobectomy or total thyroidectomy in the years 2003, 2007, and 2011 was performed. Multiple regression analysis via a weighted generalized linear model was used to identify factors that were independently associated with high cost of hospitalization. Trend as well as subgroup analyses were then performed to identify which of these factors could be contributing to increasing costs.There were 47,854 hospital admissions following total thyroidectomy or thyroid lobectomy identified in the years 2003, 2007, and 2011. The aggregate national cost of hospitalization increased from $198 million in 2003 to $373 million in 2011 in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars. The weighted mean cost of hospitalization following thyroid surgery increased from $6154 to $8982 from 2003 to 2011 in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars. Higher comorbidity score, total thyroidectomy, lymphadenectomy, western region, rural region, and certain postoperative complications were the factors most highly associated with increased hospital costs. Of these, an increasing proportion of patients with higher severity of illness score and an increasing proportion of patients undergoing total thyroidectomy and lymphadenectomy were implicated as the most likely contributors to the cost increases. The rate of total thyroidectomy and lymphadenectomy was found to be increasing for patients with both benign and malignant thyroid disease.According to the NIS data set, costs associated with hospitalization after thyroid surgery increased markedly from 2003 to 2011. This increase could be in part due to a growing proportion of sicker patients undergoing more extensive surgery, but a number of confounders in this study limit the conclusions. Further analysis of factors that could be associated with the rising costs of inpatient thyroid surgery should be undertaken.

Dataset Information

Factors Associated with Compliance to the Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule: a National Landscape Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets