The Reality of Commercial Payer-Negotiated Rates in Cleft Lip and Palate Repair

Burn Care Funding in the Era of Price Transparency-Does Verification Signal Bargaining Power?

The Price Transparency Rule of 2021 forced payors and hospitals to publicly disclose negotiated prices to foster competition and reduce cost. Burn care is costly and concentrated at less than 130 centers in the US. We aimed to analyze geographic price variations for inpatient burn care and measure the effects of American Burn Association (ABA) verification status and market concentration on prices. All available commercial rates for 2021-2022 for burn-related Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) 927, 928, 929, 933, 934, and 935 were merged with hospital-level variables, ABA verification status, and Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) data. For the DRG 927 (most intensive burn admission) a linear mixed effects model was fit with cost as the outcome and the following variables as covariates: HHI, plan type, safety net status, profit status, verification status, rural status, teaching hospital status. Random intercepts allowed for individual burn centers. There were 170,738 rates published from 1541 unique hospitals. Commercial reimbursement rates for the same DRG varied by a factor of approximately three within hospitals for all DRGs. Similarly, rates across different hospitals varied by a factor of three for all DRGs, with DRG 927 having the most variation. Burn center status was independently associated with higher reimbursement rates adjusting for facility-level factors for all DRGs except for 935. Notably, HHI was the largest predictor of commercial rates (p<0.001). Negotiated prices for inpatient burn care vary widely. ABA-verified centers garner higher rates along with burn centers in more concentrated/monopolistic markets.

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.

Commercial Insurance Rates and Coding for Lymphedema Procedures: The Current State of Confusion and Need for Consensus

BACKGROUND

Surgical treatment of lymphedema has outpaced coding paradigms. In the setting of ambiguity regarding coding for physiologic procedures [lymphovenous bypass (LVB) and vascularized lymph node transplant (VLNT)], we hypothesized that there would be variation in commercial reimbursement based on coding pattern.

METHODS

The authors performed a cross-sectional analysis of 2021 nationwide hospital pricing data for 21 CPT codes encompassing excisional (direct excision, liposuction), physiologic (LVB, VLNT), and ancillary (lymphangiography) procedures. Within-hospital ratios (WHRs) and across-hospital ratios (AHRs) for adjusted commercial rates per CPT code quantified price variation. Mixed effects linear regression modeled associations of commercial rate with public payer (Medicare and Medicaid), self-pay, and chargemaster rates.

RESULTS

A total of 270,254 commercial rates, including 95,774 rates for physiologic procedures, were extracted from 2863 hospitals. Lymphangiography codes varied most in commercial price (WHR, 1.76 to 3.89; AHR, 8.12 to 44.38). For physiologic codes, WHRs ranged from 1.01 (VLNT; free omental flap) to 3.03 (LVB; unlisted lymphatic procedure), and AHRs ranged from 5.23 (LVB; lymphatic channel incision) to 10.36 (LVB; unlisted lymphatic procedure). Median adjusted commercial rates for excisional procedures ($3635.84) were higher than for physiologic procedures ($2560.40; P < 0.001). Commercial rate positively correlated with Medicare rate for all physiologic codes combined, although regression coefficients varied by code.

CONCLUSIONS

Commercial payer-negotiated rates for physiologic procedures were highly variable both within and across hospitals, reflective of variation in CPT codes. Physiologic procedures may be undervalued relative to excisional procedures. Consistent coding nomenclature should be developed for physiologic and ancillary procedures.