Physician responses to insurance benefit restrictions: The case of ophthalmology.

This study examines the impact of social insurance benefit restrictions on physician behaviour, using ophthalmologists as a case study. We examine whether ophthalmologists use their market power to alter their fees and rebates across services to compensate for potential policy-induced income losses. The results show that ophthalmologists substantially reduced their fees and rebates for services directly targeted by the benefit restriction compared to other medical specialists' fees and rebates. There is also some evidence that they increased their fees for services that were not targeted. High-fee charging ophthalmologists exhibited larger fee and rebate responses while the low-fee charging group raise their rebates to match the reference price provided by the policy environment.

Going the extra mile? General practitioners' upcoding of fees for home visits.

General practitioners' (GPs') income often relies on self-reported activities and performances. They can therefore 'game the system' to maximize their remuneration. We investigate whether Danish GPs game their travel fees for home visits. Combining administrative and geographical data, we measure the difference between GPs' traveled and billed distances. We exploit a rise in the fees for home visits. If there is a link between the rise in fees and upcoding, we interpret this finding as indicative of gaming behavior. We find that upcoding occurs slightly more often than downcoding (16% vs. 13% of visits) for visits that can be both upcoded and downcoded. Using linear probability models with GP fixed effects, we find that the fee rise is associated with a reduction in upcoding of 0.6% of home visits (2.8% for visits where upcoding is feasible) and no change in downcoding. Importantly, we find no statistically significant differences in the reduction in upcoding across distance bands despite large differences in their fee rises. We therefore conclude that there is no causal evidence of GPs gaming their fees.

Time is money: general practitioners' reflections on the fee-for-service system.

BACKGROUND: Fee-for-service is a common payment model for remunerating general practitioners (GPs) in OECD countries. In Norway, GPs earn two-thirds of their income through fee-for-service, which is determined by the number of consultations and procedures they register as fees. In general, fee-for-service incentivises many and short consultations and is associated with high service provision. GPs act as gatekeepers for various treatments and interventions, such as addictive drugs, antibiotics, referrals, and sickness certification. This study aims to explore GPs' reflections on and perceptions of the fee-for-service system, with a specific focus on its potential impact on gatekeeping decisions. METHODS: We conducted six focus group interviews with 33 GPs in 2022 in Norway. We analysed the data using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We identified three main themes related to GPs' reflections and perceptions of the fee-for-service system. First, the participants were aware of the profitability of different fees and described potential strategies to increase their income, such as having shorter consultations or performing routine procedures on all patients. Second, the participants acknowledged that the fees might influence GP behaviour. Two perspectives on the fees were present in the discussions: fees as incentives and fees as compensation. The participants reported that financial incentives were not directly decisive in gatekeeping decisions, but that rejecting requests required substantially more time compared to granting them. Consequently, time constraints may contribute to GPs' decisions to grant patient requests even when the requests are deemed unreasonable. Last, the participants reported challenges with remembering and interpreting fees, especially complex fees. CONCLUSIONS: GPs are aware of the profitability within the fee-for-service system, believe that fee-for-service may influence their decision-making, and face challenges with remembering and interpreting certain fees. Furthermore, the fee-for-service system can potentially affect GPs' gatekeeping decisions by incentivising shorter consultations, which may result in increased consultations with inadequate time to reject unnecessary treatments.

The role of consumer choice in out-of-pocket spending on health.

BACKGROUND: Analyses of out-of-pocket healthcare spending often suffer from an inability to distinguish necessary from optional spending in the data without making further assumptions. We propose a two-dimensional rating of the spending categories often available in household budget survey data where we consider the requirement to pay for necessary healthcare as one dimension and the incentive to pay extra for additional services, higher quality options or more convenience as a second dimension to assess the distortionary potential of higher spending for additional healthcare or higher quality options. METHODS: We use three waves of a large German Household Budget Survey and decompose the Kakwani-index of total out-of-pocket healthcare spending into contributions of the eleven spending categories available in our data, across which user charge regulations vary considerably. We compute and decompose Kakwani-indexes for the different spending categories to compare the degrees of regressiveness across them. RESULTS: The results suggest that categories with higher incentives for additional spending exhibit smaller contributions to the overall regressive effect of total out-of-pocket spending than categories where spending is presumably mostly on necessary and effective care. CONCLUSIONS: Assessing the consumer choice potential of different spending categories is important because extra spending among the better-off may outweigh necessary spending in aggregate expenditure data, and may also hint at potential inequalities in the quality of provided healthcare.

Does increased provider effort improve quality of care? Evidence from a standardised patient study on correct and unnecessary treatment.

BACKGROUND: Poor quality of care, including overprovision (unnecessary care) is a global health concern. Greater provider effort has been shown to increase the likelihood of correct treatment, but its relationship with overprovision is less clear. Providers who make more effort may give more treatment overall, both correct and unnecessary, or may have lower rates of overprovision; we test which is true in the Tanzanian private health sector. METHODS: Standardised patients visited 227 private-for-profit and faith-based facilities in Tanzania, presenting with symptoms of asthma and TB. They recorded history questions asked and physical examinations carried out by the provider, as well as laboratory tests ordered, treatments prescribed, and fees paid. A measure of provider effort was constructed on the basis of a checklist of recommended history taking questions and physical exams. RESULTS: 15% of SPs received the correct care for their condition and 74% received unnecessary care. Increased provider effort was associated with increased likelihood of correct care, and decreased likelihood of giving unnecessary care. Providers who made more effort charged higher fees, through the mechanism of higher consultation fees, rather than increased fees for lab tests and drugs. CONCLUSION: Providers who made more effort were more likely to treat patients correctly. A novel finding of this study is that they were also less likely to provide unnecessary care, suggesting it is not simply a case of some providers doing "more of everything", but that those who do more in the consultation give more targeted care.

Stakeholder perceptions and experiences from the implementation of the Gratuité user fee exemption policy in Burkina Faso: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the Gratuité policy was initiated by the Government of Burkina Faso to remove user fees for maternal, newborn, and child Health (MNCH) services. Since its inception, there has not been any systematic capture of experiences of stakeholders as it relates to the policy. Our objective was to understand the perceptions and experiences of stakeholders regarding the implementation of the Gratuité policy. METHODS: We used key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) to engage national and sub-national stakeholders in the Centre and Hauts-Bassin regions. Participants included policymakers, civil servants, researchers, non-governmental organizations in charge of monitoring the policy, skilled health personnel, health facility managers, and women who used MNCH services before and after the policy implementation. Topic guides aided sessions, which were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was used for data synthesis. RESULTS: There were five key themes emerging. First, majority of stakeholders have a positive perception of the Gratuité policy. Its implementation approach is deemed to have strengths including government leadership, multi-stakeholder involvement, robust internal capacity, and external monitoring. However, collateral shortage of financial and human resources, misuse of services, delays in reimbursement, political instability and health system shocks were highlighted as concerns that compromise the government's objective of achieving universal health coverage (UHC). However, many beneficiaries were satisfied at the point of use of MNHC services, though Gratuité did not always mean free to the service users. Broadly, there was consensus that the Gratuité policy has contributed to improvements in health-seeking behavior, access, and utilization of services, especially for children. However, the reported higher utilization is leading to some perceived increased workload and altered health worker attitude. CONCLUSIONS: There is a general perception that the Gratuité policy is achieving what it set out to do, which is to increase access to care by removing financial barriers. While stakeholders recognized the intention and value of the Gratuité policy, and many beneficiaries were satisfied at the point of use, inefficiencies in its implementation undermines progress. As the country moves towards the goal of realizing UHC, reliable investment in the Gratuité policy is needed.

[Use of and Attitudes toward Tests for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and Corresponding Antibodies: Results of a Nationally Representative Survey in Late Summer 2021]. / Inanspruchnahme von und Einstellungen zu Tests zum Nachweis von SARS-CoV-2 und entsprechenden Antikörpern. Ergebnisse einer bevölkerungsrepräsentativen Befragung im Spätsommer 2021.

OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of knowledge regarding utilization of and attitudes towards tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Germany. Our work aimed to reduce this gap. METHODS: Data were taken from a nationally representative online survey (August 24th to 3rd September 2021, n=3,075; mean age: 44.5 years). Utilization of and attitudes toward Covid-19-tests were quantified in detail. RESULTS: In sum, 79.1% of respondents had already undergone an appropriate test to detect SARS-CoV-2 test (mainly rapid antigen testing at rapid testing centers and self-testing) or an antibody test. With the exception of a PCR test, Covid-19 tests were rarely perceived as uncomfortable. Respondents were most likely to prefer a rapid antigen test in a rapid testing center. The main reasons for using self-testing as well as rapid antigen testing at rapid testing centers were (i) protection of others, (ii) for their own health precautions, and (iii) traveling. The main reasons for not using self-testing/rapid antigen testing at the workplace/training center were: (i) already vaccinated against Covid-19/recovered from Covid-19, followed by (ii) the home office workplace, and (iii) a lack of perceived benefit. Nearly 80% were somewhat or very satisfied, with access to testing at the workplace/training center and rapid testing centers. CONCLUSION: Our work described the use of and aspects of attitudes toward tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Germany in late summer 2021. At that time, such test offers were already used quite often and were predominantly perceived as not being very unpleasant. The protection of other individuals was one of the main reasons for the use of such tests. Future research in this area is desirable (e. g., among the oldest old and in times when free-of-charge testing is no longer offered).

Effect of the free healthcare policy on socioeconomic inequalities in care seeking for fever in children under five years in Burkina Faso: a population-based surveys analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, Burkina Faso implemented a free healthcare policy as an initiative to remove user fees for women and under-5 children to improve access to healthcare. Socioeconomic inequalities create disparities in the use of health services which can be reduced by removing user fees. This study aimed to assess the effect of the free healthcare policy (FHCP) on the reduction of socioeconomic inequalities in the use of health services in Burkina Faso. METHODS: Data were obtained from three nationally representative population based surveys of 2958, 2617, and 1220 under-5 children with febrile illness in 2010, 2014, and 2017-18 respectively. Concentration curves were constructed for the periods before and after policy implementation to assess socioeconomic inequalities in healthcare seeking. In addition, Erreyger's corrected concentration indices were computed to determine the magnitude of these inequalities. RESULTS: Prior to the implementation of the FHCP, inequalities in healthcare seeking for febrile illnesses in under-5 children favoured wealthier households [Erreyger's concentration index = 0.196 (SE = 0.039, p = 0.039) and 0.178 (SE = 0.039, p < 0.001) in 2010 and 2014, respectively]. These inequalities decreased after policy implementation in 2017-18 [Concentration Index (CI) = 0.091, SE = 0.041; p = 0.026]. Furthermore, existing pro-rich disparities in healthcare seeking between regions before the implementation of the FHCP diminished after its implementation, with five regions having a high CI in 2010 (0.093-0.208), four regions in 2014, and no region in 2017 with such high CI. In 2017-18, pro-rich inequalities were observed in ten regions (CI:0.007-0.091),whereas in three regions (Plateau Central, Centre, and Cascades), the CI was negative indicating that healthcare seeking was in favour of poorest households. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that socioeconomic inequalities for under-5 children with febrile illness seeking healthcare in Burkina Faso reduced considerably following the implementation of the free healthcare policy. To reinforce the reduction of these disparities, policymakers should maintain the policy and focus on tackling geographical, cultural, and social barriers, especially in regions where healthcare seeking still favours rich households.

Effectiveness of hospital transfer payments under a prospective payment system: An analysis of a policy change in New Zealand.

Prospective payment systems reimburse hospitals based on diagnosis-specific flat fees, which are generally based on average costs. While this encourages cost-consciousness on the part of hospitals, it introduces undesirable incentives for patient transfers. Hospitals might feel encouraged to transfer patients if the expected treatment costs exceed the diagnosis-related flat fee. A transfer fee would discourage such behavior and, therefore, could be welfare enhancing. In 2003, New Zealand introduced a fee to cover situations of patient transfers between hospitals. We investigate the effects of this fee by analyzing 4,020,796 healthcare events from 2000 to 2007 and find a significant reduction in overall transfers after the policy change. Looking at transfer types, we observe a relative reduction in transfers to non-specialist hospitals but a relative increase in transfers to specialist facilities. It suggests that the policy change created a focusing effect that encourages public health care providers to transfer patients only when necessary to specialized providers and retain those patients they can treat. We also find no evidence that the transfer fee harmed the quality of care, measured by mortality, readmission and length of stay. The broader policy recommendation of this research is the introduction or reassessment of transfer payments to improve funding efficiency.

Decoding Billing Practices in Cochlear Implant Programs.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine current cochlear implant (CI) billing practices across CI audiologists in the United States, to determine if CI audiologists are following the National Correct Coding Initiative (NCCI) edits, and to assess the CI audiologist's exposure to billing education. DESIGN: A 48-question survey was electronically distributed to and completed by audiologists who bill for CI services. Demographic data including work setting, population served, years of experience, number of CI patients managed per week, and exposure to billing education were collected. Data were analyzed to identify codes and modifiers used to bill for commonly performed CI procedures such as unilateral and bilateral CI programming, preoperative and postoperative testing, and objective measures. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 96 audiologists. The majority (86.3%, n = 82) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed they understand billing and coding practices for cochlear implants and 94.7% (n = 89) rated themselves as somewhat to highly efficient when performing these practices. Only 16.8% (n = 16) of respondents reported receiving formal training for practice management, and half of the respondents (51.1%, n = 48) reported unfamiliarity with national billing guidelines. Those who received formal training reported higher billing efficiency. Wide variability was seen for various billing scenarios. Billing questions were presented, and answers were coded as correct or incorrect based on the NCCI edits. Respondents who reported higher agreement with understanding billing and who received formal training scored better on common billing questions related to the NCCI edits. CONCLUSIONS: Most CI audiologists rated themselves as efficient in billing; however, wide variance in billing practices was observed. Incorporating practice management and current billing education into daily practice and into audiology training programs is essential to clinic efficiency, practice management, and CI program viability. CI audiologists should be knowledgeable about appropriate billing practices to ensure long-term sustainability of programs.

Higher Author Fees in Gastroenterology Journals Are Not Associated with Faster Processing Times or Higher Impact.

BACKGROUND: Publications are an important component of academic careers. AIMS: We investigated the financial costs to authors for submitting and publishing manuscripts in gastroenterology (GI) journals in the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK), and elsewhere. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study carried out from 11/1/2020 to 12/31/2020. We used the SCImago Journal and Country Rankings site to compile a list of gastroenterology and hepatology journals to analyze. We gathered information on the journals' Hirsch indices (h indices), SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Impact Factor (IF), and base countries as of 2019, processing and publication fees, open access fees, time to first decision, and time from acceptance to publication. We used t-testing and linear regression modeling to evaluate the effect of geography and journal quality metrics on processing fees and times. RESULTS: We analyzed 97 GI journals, of which 51/97 (52.6%) were based in the US/UK while the other 46/97 (47.4%) were based elsewhere. The mean IF (5.67 vs 3.53, p = 0.08), h index (90.5 vs 41.8, p < 0.001), and SJR (1.82 vs 0.83, p < 0.001) for the US/UK journals were higher than those for non-US/UK journals. We also found that 11/51 (21.6%) of US/UK journals and 15/46 (32.6%) of non-US/UK journals had mandatory processing and publication fees. These tended to be significantly larger in the US/UK group than in the non-US/UK group (USD 2380 vs USD 1470, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Publication-related fees may preclude authors from smaller or socioeconomically disadvantaged institutions and countries from publishing and disseminating their work.

Charging of overseas visitors in England and universal health coverage: a cross-sectional analysis of NHS trusts.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, new regulations in England introduced upfront charging for non-urgent care within the National Health Service (NHS). Individuals from outside the European Economic Area who have not paid the immigration surcharge are chargeable for NHS care at 150% of cost. METHODS: A freedom of information (FOI) request was sent to 135 acute non-specialist NHS trusts in England to create a database of overseas visitors charges. This was analysed using multiple linear regression to explore the relationship between sex, age, nationality, ethnicity, urgency and the cost of healthcare. RESULTS: Of 135 acute non-specialist trusts in England 64 replied, providing a data set of 13 484 patients. Women were found to be invoiced higher amounts than men (P = 0.002). Patients were more likely to be women (63 versus 37% men), and within this group, almost half of patients were of reproductive age, with 47.9% (3165) aged 16-40 years old. Only seven trusts supplied data on urgency, and within these trusts the urgency of treatment was significantly related to cost, with the most urgent (immediately necessary) treatment costing the most (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This research reflects that that migrant women, and particularly undocumented women, are disproportionately impacted by the NHS charging policies in England.

Patient cost consciousness in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: 'Surprise billing', or the phenomenon of unexpected coverage gaps in which patients receiving out-of-network medical bills after what they thought was in-network care, has been a major focus of policymakers and advocacy groups recently, particularly in the Emergency Department (ED) setting, where patients' ability to choose a provider is exceedingly limited. The No Surprises Act is the legislative culmination to address "surprise bills," with the aim of promoting price transparency as a solution for billing irregularities. However, the knowledge and perceptions of patients regarding emergency care price transparency, particularly the degree to which ED patients are cost conscious is unknown. Accordingly, we sought to quantify that perception by measuring patients' direct predictions for the cost of their care. METHODS: We conducted an in-person survey of patients in Emergency Departments (EDs) over an 10-month period at two campuses within a large academic hospital system in southern Connecticut. We surveyed a convenience sample of patients at the bedside regarding demographics, care seeking perceptions and their estimates of the total and out-of-pocket costs for their ED care. Survey data was linked to institutional hospital finance datasets including actual charges and payments. We then later obtained the actual costs and billed amounts and compared these to the patients' estimates using a paired t-test. We also analyzed results according to certain patient demographics. RESULTS: A total of 600 patients were approached for survey, and data from 455 were available for the final analysis. On average, patients overestimated the cost of their care by $2484 and overestimated out-of-pocket cost by $144; both of these results met statistical significance (p < .005). Patients were better able to predict both total and out-of-pocket costs if they were: college educated or above; unemployed or retired; aged 65 or older; or had private insurance. Uninsured patients could better predict total cost but not out-of-pocket costs. One in 4 patients reported considering the cost of care prior to visiting the ED. Only 12 patients reported trying to look up that price before coming. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to our knowledge that sought to quantify how patients perceive the cost of acute, unscheduled care in the ED. We found that ED patients generally do not consider the price before going to the ED, and subsequently overestimate the negotiated total costs of acute, unscheduled emergency care as well as their out-of-pocket responsibility for care. Certain demographics are less predictive of this association. Notably, patients with Medicare/Medicaid and those with high school education or below were of the furthest off in predicting the actual cost of care. This lends credence to the established trend of patients' limited knowledge of the total cost of healthcare; moreover, that they overestimate the cost of their care could serve as a barrier to accessing that care particularly in more vulnerable groups. We hope that this finding adds useful information to policymakers in sculpting future legislation around surprise billing.

Trends in treatment costs of U.S. emergency department visits.

BACKGROUND: Spending on emergency department (ED) services in recent years has increased faster than spending in any other area of healthcare. Analyzing growth rates of ED treatment costs by patient and hospital attributes may illuminate ways to reduce overall hospital cost growth. Prior studies have examined changes in ED visit charges and expenditures over time, but little research has focused on changes in ED treatment costs. METHODS: We analyzed trends in ED treatment costs by applying the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Cost-to-Charge Ratios for ED Files to the 2012-2019 HCUP Nationwide Emergency Department Sample. Specifically, we estimated treatment cost per ED visit, mean and total costs by patient and hospital characteristics, and compound annual growth rate in costs and patient volumes. RESULTS: During 2012-2019, ED treatment costs increased from $54 billion to $88 billion, a 5.4% annual growth rate-with 4.4 percentage points attributable to higher treatment cost per visit. Growth rates varied by patient and hospital attribute. CONCLUSIONS: By highlighting overall ED cost trends, as well as specific segments of the delivery system with the most rapidly increasing costs, this study provides important information for policymakers and hospital decisionmakers.

Willingness to pay for a National Health Insurance (NHI) in Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare services in Saudi Arabia are provided free of charge to its citizens at the point of use. Recently, however, the government has realized that this model is unsustainable in the long run. Therefore, Saudi decision-makers are seeking to have a sustainable health system through the introduction of a contributory National Health Insurance that require making regular financial contributions from its members. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the people's willingness to pay for a National Health Insurance system in Saudi Arabia. The study also aims to understand the factors affecting their willingness or unwillingness to pay NHI, such as, their demographic and socio-economic characteristics, the type of their usual health care provider, and their satisfaction with the current healthcare services. METHODS: A cross-sectional study design with Contingent Valuation (CV) technique was used to measure the value of National Health Insurance based on an individual's willingness to pay. The data were collected from 475 participants using an online survey via Google Forms between March 2021 and April 2021. Frequencies, logistic regression, and linear regression, were conducted to answer the research questions. RESULTS: The number of individuals who was willing to pay for NHI was higher than those who were not willing to pay (62.9, 95% CI = 58.4-67.3%) vs (37.1, 95% CI = 32.7-41.6%). A binomial test found this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). There was a significant association between the likelihood of paying for NHI and type of usual healthcare provider (OR = 3.129, 95% CI = 1.943-5.039, p < 0.001); as individuals using public health services were more likely to pay for NHI. Also, with satisfaction with health services (OR = 14.305, 95% CI = 3.240-63.153, p < 0.001), as individuals who were very satisfied with the healthcare services were more likely to pay for NHI. The median amount of money the people were willing to pay as a monthly contribution for NHI was 100 SAR (26.5 USD) with the average being 152 SAR (40 USD). There was a significant association between the maximum amount the participants were willing to pay and age, region, and education. Specifically, 30-39-year-olds were willing to pay more for NHI compared to participants aged 50 or older (ß = 103.55, 95% CI = 26.27- 199.29); participants from central region more than participants from northern region (ß = 70.71,95% CI = 2.14- 138.58); and participants with masters degree more than participants with PhDs (ß = 227.46, 95% CI = 81.59- 399.28). CONCLUSION: This study provided some evidence that more people were willing to pay for NHI than those who declined. Individuals who frequently used public health services and were very satisfied with these services were more willing to pay for NHI. Younger population, those with master's degree, and from the central region were willing to pay more amount of money for NHI. These results could help policy makers shape their decisions and anticipate problems that may arise with NHI implementation.

Health care seeking in modern urban LMIC settings: evidence from Lusaka, Zambia.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to improve population health, many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have expanded access to public primary care facilities and removed user fees for services in these facilities. However, a growing literature suggests that many patients bypass nearby primary care facilities to seek care at more distant or higher-level facilities. Patients in urban areas, a growing segment of the population in LMICs, generally have more options for where to seek care than patients in rural areas. However, evidence on care-seeking trajectories and bypassing patterns in urban areas remains relatively scarce. METHODS: We obtained a complete list of public health facilities and interviewed randomly selected informal sector households across 31 urban areas in Lusaka District, Zambia. All households and facilities listed were geocoded, and care-seeking trajectories mapped across the entire urban area. We analyzed three types of bypassing: i) not using health centers or health posts for primary care; ii) seeking care outside of the residential neighborhood; iii) directly seeking care at teaching hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 620 households were interviewed, linked to 88 health facilities. Among 571 adults who had recently sought non-emergency care, 65% sought care at a hospital. Among 141 children who recently sought care for diarrhea, cough, fever, or fast breathing, 34% sought care at a hospital. 71% of adults bypassed primary care facilities, 26% bypassed health centers and hospitals close to them for more distant facilities, and 8% directly sought care at a teaching hospital. Bypassing was also observed for 59% of children, who were more likely to seek care outside of the formal care sector, with 21% of children treated at drug shops or pharmacies. CONCLUSIONS: The results presented here strongly highlight the complexity of urban health systems. Most adult patients in Lusaka do not use public primary health facilities for non-emergency care, and heavily rely on pharmacies and drug shops for treatment of children. Major efforts will likely be needed if the government wants to instate health centers as the principal primary care access point in this setting.

Standardizing the fee-waiver application increased naturalization rates of low-income immigrants.

Citizenship can accelerate immigrant integration and result in benefits for both local communities and the foreign-born themselves. Yet the majority of naturalization-eligible immigrants in the United States do not apply for citizenship, and we lack systematic evidence on policies specifically designed to encourage take-up. In this study, we analyze the impact of the standardization of the fee-waiver process in 2010 by the US Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). This reform allowed low-income immigrants eligible for citizenship to use a standardized form to have their application fee waived. We employ a difference-in-differences methodology, comparing naturalization behavior among eligible and ineligible immigrants before and after the policy change. We find that the fee-waiver reform increased the naturalization rate by 1.5 percentage points. This amounts to about 73,000 immigrants per year gaining citizenship who otherwise would not have applied. In contrast to previous research on the take-up of federal benefits programs, we find that the positive effect of the fee-waiver reform was concentrated among the subgroups of immigrants with lower incomes, language skills, and education levels, who typically face the steepest barriers to naturalization. Further evidence suggests that this pattern is driven by immigration service providers, who are well-positioned to help the most needy immigrants file their fee-waiver requests.

Prevalence, Burden, and Sources of Out-of-Network Billing in Elective Hand Surgery: A National Claims Database Analysis.

PURPOSE: Surprise out-of-network (OON) bills can represent a considerable cost burden on patients. However, OON billing remains underexplored in elective, outpatient surgery procedures, which have greater latitude for patient choice. We aimed to answer the following questions: (1) What is the prevalence and magnitude of OON charges in hand surgery? (2) What are the sources of OON charges? and (3) What factors are associated with OON charges? METHODS: We analyzed patient-level data from the Clinformatics Data Mart database. We identified patients undergoing carpal tunnel release, trigger finger release, wrist ganglion removal, de Quervain release, limited palmar fasciectomy, or thumb carpometacarpal arthroplasty at in-network facilities with an in-network primary surgeon. The primary outcome was the proportion of surgical episodes with at least 1 OON charge. Secondary outcomes included the magnitude of potential balance bills (portion of OON bill exclusive of the standardized payment and expected patient cost-sharing), sources of OON charges, and factors associated with OON charges. RESULTS: Of 112,211 elective hand surgery episodes, 8% (9,158) had at least 1 OON charge. OON charges ranged from $1,154 (95% confidence interval, $1,018-$1,289) for wrist ganglion removal to $3,162 (95% confidence interval, $2,902-$3,423) for thumb carpometacarpal arthroplasty. In episodes with OON charges, the major sources of OON charges were anesthesiologists (75% of episodes), durable medical equipment (10% of episodes), and pathologists (9% of episodes). Site of service, geographic region, and health exchange-purchased plans were highly associated with OON charges. CONCLUSIONS: Out-of-network billing can represent a substantial cost burden to patients and should be considered in perioperative decision-making in elective hand surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding the potential costs related to OON services during a surgical episode, and its drivers, allows surgeons to consider detailed cost discussions during perioperative decision making.