How important is price variation between health insurers?

Negotiated Rates for Surgical Cancer Care in the Era of Price Transparency-Prices Reflect Market Competition

OBJECTIVE

To measure commercial price variation for cancer surgery within and across hospitals.

BACKGROUND

Surgical care for solid-organ tumors is costly, and negotiated commercial rates have been hidden from public view. The Hospital Price Transparency Rule, enacted in 2021, requires all hospitals to list their negotiated rates on their website, thus opening the door for an examination of pricing for cancer surgery.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study using 2021 negotiated price data disclosed by US hospitals for the 10 most common cancers treated with surgery. Price variation was measured using within-hospital and across-hospital ratios. Commercial rates relative to cancer center designation and the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index at the facility level were evaluated with mixed effects linear regression with random intercepts per procedural code.

RESULTS

In all, 495,200 unique commercial rates from 2232 hospitals resulted for the 10 most common solid-organ tumor cancers. Gynecologic cancer operations had the highest median rates at $6035.8/operation compared with bladder cancer surgery at $3431.0/operation. Compared with competitive markets, moderately and highly concentrated markets were associated with significantly higher rates (HHI 1501, 2500, coefficient $513.6, 95% CI, $295.5, $731.7; HHI >2500, coefficient $1115.5, 95% CI, $913.7, $1317.2). National Cancer Institute designation was associated with higher rates, coefficient $3,451.9 (95% CI, $2853.2, $4050.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Commercial payer-negotiated prices for the surgical management of 10 common, solid tumor malignancies varied widely both within and across hospitals. Higher rates were observed in less competitive markets. Future efforts should facilitate price competition and limit health market concentration.

Do Insurers With Greater Market Power Negotiate Consistently Lower Prices for Hospital Care? Evidence From Hospital Price Transparency Data

This study examined if greater insurer market power was associated with consistently lower negotiated prices within each hospital for 44 shoppable and emergency procedures, using price transparency data disclosed by 1,506 hospitals in metropolitan areas. We used multi-level fixed effects models to estimate the within-hospital variation in plan-level insurer-negotiated prices (from the largest insurer, the second largest insurer, other major insurers, and nonmajor insurers) and cash-pay prices as a function of insurer market power. For shoppable services, relative to nonmajor insurers, the largest, second largest, and other major insurers negotiated 23%, 16%, and 3% lower prices, respectively, while cash prices were 17% higher. For emergency room visits, while the largest insurers paid 5% less than nonmajor insurers, the second largest and other major insurers did not pay lower prices. Stratified analyses by type of shoppable services found varying magnitudes and patterns of price discounts associated with insurer market power.

Enrollment Trends In Self-Funded Employer-Sponsored Insurance, 2015 And 2021

The share of employer-sponsored health insurance enrollment in self-funded plans grew from 55 percent in 2015 to 60 percent in 2021. Growth was concentrated in states with an initially low share but was widespread across most states (88.0 percent saw growth) and counties (78.2 percent saw growth). There were substantial differences in plan types in the self-funded and fully insured markets.

Health Care Service Price Comparison Suggests That Employers Lack Leverage To Negotiate Lower Prices

Almost two-thirds of the 153 million nonelderly people in the United States who have health insurance through their employer are in self-insured plans. In contrast to fully insured plans, employers using self-insured plans assume responsibility for employees' medical costs and therefore have an incentive to reduce the prices of health care services. We compared prices for common services in self-insured plans with those in fully insured plans. Using the Health Care Cost Institute's data set of claims for one-third of the US population with employer-sponsored insurance, we found that unadjusted prices were higher in self-insured plans for most of the services we studied, with the largest differences found for endoscopies (approximately 8 percent higher in self-insured plans), colonoscopies (approximately 7 percent), laboratory tests (approximately 5 percent), and moderate-severity emergency department visits (4 percent). When patient characteristics, plan type, and geography were adjusted for, differences were generally smaller but were consistent with these findings. Higher prices in self-insured plans suggest that there may be opportunities for employers to lower prices and for policy makers to act where employers have limited leverage to negotiate with providers.

Hospital Prices For Commercial Plans Are Twice Those For Medicare Advantage Plans When Negotiated By The Same Insurer

Most major insurers operate in both the commercial health insurance and Medicare Advantage (MA) markets. We investigated the ratio of commercial-to-MA prices negotiated by the same insurer, in the same hospital and for the same services, using 2022 price information disclosed by hospitals in compliance with the hospital price transparency rule. Insurers negotiated median hospital prices for commercial plans that were two to three times higher than their MA prices in the same hospital for the same service. The median commercial-to-MA price ratio in the same hospital varied, from 1.8 for surgery and medicine services to 2.2 for laboratory tests and emergency department visits and 2.4 for imaging services. In multivariable Poisson regression analysis, higher ratios were associated with system-affiliated, nonprofit, and teaching hospitals, as well as with large national insurers. These findings reflect the differences in financial incentives and regulatory policies in the commercial and MA markets. Because insurers respond to differing incentives by obtaining different negotiated prices across markets, policy and practice efforts that alter incentives for insurers may have the potential to lower commercial prices.

Do high-deductible health plans affect price paid for childbirth?

OBJECTIVE

To test whether out-of-pocket costs and negotiated hospital prices for childbirth change after enrollment in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) and whether price effects differ in markets with more hospitals.

DATA SOURCES

Administrative medical claims data from 2010 to 2014 from three large commercial insurers with plans in all U.S. states provided by the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI).

STUDY DESIGN

I identify employer groups that switched from non-HDHPs in 1 year to HDHPs in a subsequent year. I estimate enrollees' change in out-of-pocket costs and negotiated hospital prices for childbirth after HDHP switch, relative to a comparison group of employers that do not switch plans. I use a triple-difference design to estimate price changes for enrollees in markets with more hospital choices. Finally, I re-estimate models with hospital-fixed effects.

DATA COLLECTION

From the HCCI sample, childbearing women enrolled in an employer-sponsored plan with at least 10 people.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Switching to an HDHP increases out-of-pocket cost $227 (p < 0.001; comparison group base $790) and has no meaningful effect on hospital-negotiated prices (-$26, p = 0.756; comparison group base $5821). HDHP switch is associated with a marginally statistically significant price increase in markets with three or fewer hospitals ($343, p = 0.096; comparison group base $5806) and, relative to those markets, with a price decrease in markets with more than three hospitals (-$512; p = 0.028). Predicted prices decrease from $5702 to $5551 after HDHP switch in markets with more than three hospitals due primarily to lower prices conditional on using the same hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Prices for childbirth in markets with more hospitals decrease after HDHP switch due to lower hospital prices for HDHPs relative to prices at those same hospitals for non-HDHPs. These results reinforce previous findings that HDHPs do not promote price shopping but suggest negotiated prices may be lower for HDHP enrollees.

Alternative payment models and physician treatment decisions: Evidence from lower back pain

The capitated payment model has been used to address the high cost of health care. Under capitation, physicians are compensated with a fixed amount per patient, regardless of the services generated. We provide new evidence on how the capitation payment model changes physicians behaviors by studying the treatment of lower back pain, as this type of treatment provides substantial scope for physicians discretion. We use data from 2003 to 2006 from a large database of employer-sponsored health insurance claims and leverage capitation variation within the plan and physician to mitigate selection concerns. The results show that the treatment intensity-primarily derived from therapy and diagnostic testing -of patients under a capitation system is 7-12% lower than that of similar patients in a non-capitated plan. Furthermore, we find no evidence of increased relapse rates for patients in a capitated plan.

Hospital resource allocation decisions when market prices exceed Medicare prices

OBJECTIVE

To examine nonprofit hospitals' financial and spending allocations when the private sector payment rate is higher than the Medicare's payment rate.

DATA SOURCES

Hospital financial data for 2014-2018 from Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Cost Reports, hospital characteristics from the American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey.

STUDY DESIGN

Hospital and year level fixed effects regressions modeling each hospital's (1) operating net income per discharge equivalent (DE); (2) administrative cost per DE; (3) patient care cost per DE; (4) registered nurse per bed; charity care cost per DE; and (5) provision of unprofitable services as a function of the private sector to Medicare payment ratio (PMR).

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Hospital/year-level data from hospital cost reports merged with AHA data. Samples included general short-term hospitals with nonprofit ownership, excluding critical access hospitals.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The final sample included a total of 8862 hospital-year observations, with a mean PMR of 1.62. Nonprofit hospitals having a 0.1 higher PMR were associated with $257 (95% CI: $181-$334) increase in operating net income per DE; $66 (95% CI: $32-$99) increase in administrative cost per DE; $170 (95% CI: $120-$220) increase in patient care cost per DE; and $18 (95% CI: $10-$25) increase in charity care cost per DE. We found hospitals hired 0.86 (95% CI: -0.08 to 1.81) more registered nurses per 100 beds, but no evidence on providing more beds for unprofitable services, such as obstetric care, burn care, alcohol/drug abuse treatment, or psychiatric care.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher private sector prices led primarily to greater surplus and administrative cost for nonprofit hospitals and smaller increases in spending on services that will directly benefit patients.