Survey of Hospital Chargemaster Transparency

Usability of Health Care Price Transparency Data in the United States: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Increasing health care expenditure in the United States has put policy makers under enormous pressure to find ways to curtail costs. Starting January 1, 2021, hospitals operating in the United States were mandated to publish transparent, accessible pricing information online about the items and services in a consumer-friendly format within comprehensive machine-readable files on their websites.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study are to analyze the available files on hospitals' websites, answering the question-is price transparency (PT) information as provided usable for patients or for machines?-and to provide a solution.

METHODS

We analyzed 39 main hospitals in Florida that have published machine-readable files on their website, including commercial carriers. We created an Excel (Microsoft) file that included those 39 hospitals along with the 4 most popular services-Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 45380, 29827, and 70553 and Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) 807-for the 4 most popular commercial carriers (Health Maintenance Organization [HMO] or Preferred Provider Organization [PPO] plans)-Aetna, Florida Blue, Cigna, and UnitedHealthcare. We conducted an A/B test using 67 MTurkers (randomly selected from US residents), investigating the level of awareness about PT legislation and the usability of available files. We also suggested format standardization, such as master field names using schema integration, to make machine-readable files consistent and usable for machines.

RESULTS

The poor usability and inconsistent formats of the current PT information yielded no evidence of its usefulness for patients or its quality for machines. This indicates that the information does not meet the requirements for being consumer-friendly or machine readable as mandated by legislation. Based on the responses to the first part of the experiment (PT awareness), it was evident that participants need to be made aware of the PT legislation. However, they believe it is important to know the service price before receiving it. Based on the responses to the second part of the experiment (human usability of PT information), the average number of correct responses was not equal between the 2 groups, that is, the treatment group (mean 1.23, SD 1.30) found more correct answers than the control group (mean 2.76, SD 0.58; t65=6.46; P<.001; d=1.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent machine-readable files across all health systems facilitate the development of tools for estimating customer out-of-pocket costs, aligning with the PT rule's main objective-providing patients with valuable information and reducing health care expenditures.

Outpatient apheresis billing: A photopheresis model shows that hospital price transparency data remain difficult to interpret

OBJECTIVES

The US health care payment system is complex and difficult to interpret. Although federal regulations require that more data, in the form of charges and negotiated rates, be made available, compliance remains variable. We review chargemaster and negotiated rate values for extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) to assess this variability. We sought to determine the availability of chargemaster and negotiated rates for health care consumers and to assess compliance and pricing among institutions using ECP as a model for apheresis billing.

METHODS

We obtained ECP chargemaster data and negotiated rates from 20 institutions. We analyzed the availability of ECP chargemaster data and compared values with a previously published historic cohort. We evaluated the availability of negotiated rates and determined relative reimbursement using charge to reimbursement ratios. We determined calculated fines for hospitals based on bed size.

RESULTS

Chargemaster availability increased from 2019 to 2022, though only 65% (13/20) of hospitals had both chargemaster and negotiated rate data. Chargemaster prices increased significantly from 2019 to 2022 (range, $3,586.83-$34,043.00). We reviewed 1,191 negotiated rates, with institutions averaging 93.6 different rates (SD, 189.5). Negotiated rates were variable, ranging from $3,586.83 to $34,043.00 per procedure. Reimbursement was higher among private insurers compared with reported Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services negotiated rates. Of the 35% (7/20) that lacked chargemaster and negotiated rates, institutions faced an average annual fine of $1,430,800.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recent financial penalties, ECP pricing data are often unavailable or inadequate. Current available resources are unlikely to benefit the average health care consumer who requires ECP.

Pharmaceutical Purchasing: a Review of the Landscape and Implications for Antidotal Therapies

The management of the poisoned patient often requires the utilization of uncommonly used pharmaceutical interventions. These interventions can be associated with significant costs to both the patient and treating institution. Pharmaceutical supply shortages and issues with accessibility of antidotal therapies complicate the management of many toxic exposures. These challenges are an inherent property of the pharmaceutical purchasing infrastructure in the United States, which is a complicated network of public and private intra-institutional agreements. The cost and availability of any given therapy is dependent on the individual contracting agreements between the treating institution, payer, pharmacy benefit manager, manufacturer or wholesaler, and in some cases a specialty pharmacy. Small or remote hospitals may experience greater challenges related to insufficient patient volume to achieve predicable prescribing patterns of rare and expensive medications, necessitating consignment purchasing arrangements. Although pharmaceutical costs are the focus of recent legislative attention, these reforms are not expected to significantly alter the cost or availability of antidotal therapies.

Publicly Disclosed Pricing for Common Upper-Extremity Procedures: An Analysis of Hospital Chargemasters

BACKGROUND

American hospitals are required to provide price transparency data (known as a chargemaster) for medical services, which is intended to allow consumers to accurately estimate the cost of medical services. Our purpose was to identify hospital compliance in publishing chargemaster documents and to assess the price information published for common upper-extremity services and procedures.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of publicly available chargemaster data from 122 hospitals, which included the top-20-ranked Honor Roll hospitals from US News and World Report and 2 top-ranked hospitals from each state. Chargemaster files were accessed for each hospital, and price information was recorded for 10 common upper-extremity procedures including radiographs, injections, and surgeries. Mean procedural prices were compared between academic and nonacademic hospitals.

RESULTS

Chargemaster files were able to be accessed for 107 (88%) of 122 institutions. Price estimates for imaging studies were more frequently reported (73%) than those of procedures (23%-41%). With 50 hospitals reporting a price estimate, carpal tunnel injection was the most frequently reported procedure, whereas trigger finger release was the least frequently reported (41% and 23%, respectively). Wide price ranges were noted, with mean charges for a total shoulder arthroplasty listed as US $51 723 (range, US $247-US $364 024). Mean prices between academic and nonacademic hospital systems were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

While most (88%) of the included hospitals have been compliant with publishing their price transparency files, price estimates for common upper-extremity procedures and imaging studies are inconsistently reported and, when present, demonstrate high levels of price variability between and within hospital systems.

Hospital Markup in Head and Neck Cancer Surgery in the US

Importance

Marked variation in hospital costs and payments is a target for health care reform efforts. Limited data exist to explain variability in prices for head and neck surgical procedures.

Objective

To characterize variations in hospital price markup for head and neck cancer surgery, and examine associations with market concentration and hospital for-profit status.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, the Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to identify 150 275 patients who underwent head and neck cancer surgery for a malignant upper aerodigestive tract neoplasm from 2001 to 2011. The markup ratio (charges to costs) was modeled as a continuous and categorical variable. Hospital market concentration was evaluated using a variable-radius Herfindahl-Hirschman Index from the 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2009 Hospital Market Structure files. Data were analyzed from May 2019 to July 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Multivariable regression was used to evaluate associations between hospital and patient variables and hospital markup.

Results

There were 150 275 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [12.6] years; 104 974 [70.0%] male) from 2001 to 2011 for whom hospital market information was available. Hospital markup ratios ranged from 0.8 to 8.7, with a mean markup ratio of 2.8 (95% CI, 2.7-2.9). Hospitals in the lowest markup ratio quartile had a mean markup ratio of 1.8 (95% CI, 1.8-1.9), while hospitals in the top markup ratio quartile (extreme markup) had a mean markup ratio of 4.1 (95% CI, 4.0-4.2). Extreme markup hospitals were more often large (77.5% vs 66.6%), private for-profit hospitals (19.0% vs 1.3%), and were less likely to be high-volume hospitals (21.0% vs 9.4%) or in competitive markets (64.4% vs 82.0%). Postoperative complications occurred more often in extreme markup hospitals (22.7% vs 17.1%). On multivariate analysis, a significantly higher markup was associated with private, for-profit hospitals (47.9%; 95% CI, 33.3%-64.2%), hospitals in the West (25.5%; 95% CI, 12.6%-39.8%), Hispanic race (9.8%; 95% CI, 4.4%-15.5%), prior radiation therapy (5.3%; 95% CI, 1.3%-9.4%), comorbidity (3.5%; 95% CI, 1.7%-5.4%), and complications (2.8%; 95% CI, 0.3%-5.4%). Hospital market concentration modified the association between hospital for-profit status and markup, with higher markups in for-profit hospitals in moderately concentrated and concentrated (less competitive) markets.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study, there was wide variation in hospital markup for head and neck cancer surgery, with a 4-fold increase in charges relative to costs in 25% of hospitals. Variations in surgical price were primarily associated with hospital profit status. These data suggest that greater transparency is needed to address disparities in hospital pricing.

Corporate Control of Emergency Departments: Dangers from the Growing Monster

BACKGROUND

Corporate control in emergency departments (EDs) has increased during the past 20 years through hospital consolidation and the growth of ED contract management groups.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the growing corporate influence in the practice of emergency medicine and associated dangers to the public's safety and well-being.

DISCUSSION

Hospital systems through mergers and acquisitions have created regional monopolies providing them the power to charge high fees, which can lead to economic hardship for patients. Hospitals have also increasingly employed physicians and can exert influence over their practice to further increase profits. ED contract management groups (CMGs) obtain the exclusive contract for emergency services and gain control over the livelihood of emergency physicians, decreasing their autonomy and inserting the business interest into the physician-patient relationship, and this may result in harm to patients. Safety issues identified by emergency physicians may not be articulated for fear of being fired, and protocols may direct physicians to order unneeded testing and encourage unnecessary hospital admissions to make higher profits. Of additional concern, some CMGs are involved in graduate emergency medicine education, exposing physicians in training to corporate influence during their formative years.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the potential harm to patients due to corporate influence, there must be serious consideration for legislative or regulatory solutions regarding the increasing corporate control of emergency medicine in the United States.