Prices and complications in hospital-based and freestanding surgery centers.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify differences in prices paid and procedural complications incurred in hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) and freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). STUDY DESIGN: Observational study using deidentified 2019-2020 insurance claims from Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance plans nationally, with information on prices paid and complications incurred for colonoscopy, knee or shoulder arthroscopy, and cataract removal surgery. METHODS: The data include 1,662,183 patients who received a colonoscopy, 53.5% of whom were treated in HOPDs; 259,200 patients who underwent arthroscopy, 61.0% of whom were treated in HOPDs; and 173,664 patients who had cataract removal surgery, 34.7% of whom were treated in HOPDs. Multivariable linear regression methods were used to identify the associations between HOPD and ASC site of care, prices, and complications after adjusting for patient demographics, risk, and geographic market location. RESULTS: After adjusting for patient characteristics, risk, and geographic market location, prices paid in HOPDs were 54.9% higher than those charged in ASCs for colonoscopy (95% CI, 53.6%-56.1%), 44.4% higher for arthroscopy (95% CI, 43.0%-45.8%), and 44.0% higher for cataract removal surgery (95% CI, 42.9%-45.5%). Adjusted rates of complications were slightly higher in HOPDs than ASCs for colonoscopy over a 90-day interval but similar over the 7- and 30-day intervals. Rates were statistically and clinically similar between the 2 sites of care for arthroscopy and cataract removal. CONCLUSIONS: The higher prices charged in HOPDs for the 3 ambulatory procedures were not balanced by better quality-as measured by rates of procedural complications-compared with procedures performed in nonhospital ASCs.

Hospital Prices for Physician-Administered Drugs for Patients with Private Insurance.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals can leverage their position between the ultimate buyers and sellers of drugs to retain a substantial share of insurer pharmaceutical expenditures. METHODS: In this study, we used 2020-2021 national Blue Cross Blue Shield claims data regarding patients in the United States who had drug-infusion visits for oncologic conditions, inflammatory conditions, or blood-cell deficiency disorders. Markups of the reimbursement prices were measured in terms of amounts paid by Blue Cross Blue Shield plans to hospitals and physician practices relative to the amounts paid by these providers to drug manufacturers. Acquisition-price reductions in hospital payments to drug manufacturers were measured in terms of discounts under the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program. We estimated the percentage of Blue Cross Blue Shield drug spending that was received by drug manufacturers and the percentage retained by provider organizations. RESULTS: The study included 404,443 patients in the United States who had 4,727,189 drug-infusion visits. The median price markup (defined as the ratio of the reimbursement price to the acquisition price) for hospitals eligible for 340B discounts was 3.08 (interquartile range, 1.87 to 6.38). After adjustment for drug, patient, and geographic factors, price markups at hospitals eligible for 340B discounts were 6.59 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.02 to 7.16) as high as those in independent physician practices, and price markups at noneligible hospitals were 4.34 times (95% CI, 3.77 to 4.90) as high as those in physician practices. Hospitals eligible for 340B discounts retained 64.3% of insurer drug expenditures, whereas hospitals not eligible for 340B discounts retained 44.8% and independent physician practices retained 19.1%. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that hospitals imposed large price markups and retained a substantial share of total insurer spending on physician-administered drugs for patients with private insurance. The effects were especially large for hospitals eligible for discounts under the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program on acquisition costs paid to manufacturers. (Funded by Arnold Ventures and the National Institute for Health Care Management.).

Financial Conflicts of Interest in Public Comments on Medicare National Coverage Determinations of Medical Devices.

This study reviewed public comments for all Medicare National Coverage Determinations between June 2019 and 2022 on select pulmonary and cardiac devices to determine whether financial conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Long-term Outcomes in Use of Opioids, Nonpharmacologic Pain Interventions, and Total Costs of Spinal Cord Stimulators Compared With Conventional Medical Therapy for Chronic Pain.

Importance: Spinal cord stimulators (SCSs) are increasingly used for the treatment of chronic pain. There is a need for studies with long-term follow-up. Objective: To determine the comparative effectiveness and costs of SCSs compared with conventional medical management (CMM) in a large cohort of patients with chronic pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a 1:5 propensity-matched retrospective comparative effectiveness research analysis of insured individuals from April 1, 2016, to August 31, 2018. This study used administrative claims data, including longitudinal medical and pharmacy claims, from US commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees 18 years or older in Optum Labs Data Warehouse. Patients with incident diagnosis codes for failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, chronic pain syndrome, and other chronic postsurgical back and extremity pain were included in this study. Data were analyzed from February 1, 2021, to August 31, 2022. Exposures: SCSs or CMM. Main Outcomes and Measures: Surrogate measures for primary chronic pain treatment modalities, including pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic pain interventions (epidural and facet corticosteroid injections, radiofrequency ablation, and spine surgery), as well as total costs. Results: In the propensity-matched population of 7560 patients, mean (SD) age was 63.5 (12.5) years, 3080 (40.7%) were male, and 4480 (59.3%) were female. Among matched patients, during the first 12 months, patients treated with SCSs had higher odds of chronic opioid use (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.29) compared with patients treated with CMM but lower odds of epidural and facet corticosteroid injections (aOR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.39-0.51), radiofrequency ablation (aOR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.44-0.72), and spine surgery (aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.85). During months 13 to 24, there was no significant difference in chronic opioid use (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.94-1.20), epidural and facet corticosteroid injections (aOR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.87-1.14), radiofrequency ablation (aOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.66-1.09), or spine surgery (aOR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.75-1.09) with SCS use compared with CMM. Overall, 226 of 1260 patients (17.9%) treated with SCS experienced SCS-related complications within 2 years, and 279 of 1260 patients (22.1%) had device revisions and/or removals, which were not always for complications. Total costs of care in the first year were $39 000 higher with SCS than CMM and similar between SCS and CMM in the second year. Conclusions and Relevance: In this large, real-world, comparative effectiveness research study comparing SCS and CMM for chronic pain, SCS placement was not associated with a reduction in opioid use or nonpharmacologic pain interventions at 2 years. SCS was associated with higher costs, and SCS-related complications were common.

Cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead safety: Harnessing real-world remote monitoring data for medical device evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Current methods to identify cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead failure include postapproval studies, which may be limited in scope, participant numbers, and attrition; studies relying on administrative codes, which lack specificity; and voluntary adverse event reporting, which cannot determine incidence or attribution to the lead. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether adjudicated remote monitoring (RM) data can address these limitations and augment lead safety evaluation. METHODS: Among 48,191 actively monitored patients with a cardiovascular implantable electronic device, we identified RM transmissions signifying incident lead abnormalities and, separately, identified all leads abandoned or extracted between April 1, 2019, and April 1, 2021. We queried electronic health record and Medicare fee-for-service claims data to determine whether patients had administrative codes for lead failure. We verified lead failure through manual electronic health record review. RESULTS: Of the 48,191 patients, 1170 (2.4%) had incident lead abnormalities detected by RM. Of these, 409 patients had administrative codes for lead failure, and 233 of these 409 patients (57.0%) had structural lead failure verified through chart review. Of the 761 patients without administrative codes, 167 (21.9%) had structural lead failure verified through chart review. Thus, 400 patients with RM transmissions suggestive of lead abnormalities (34.2%) had structural lead failure. In addition, 200 patients without preceding abnormal RM transmissions had leads abandoned or extracted for structural failure, making the total lead failure cohort 600 patients (66.7% with RM abnormalities, 33.3% without). Patients with isolated right atrial or left ventricular lead failure were less likely to have lead replacement and administrative codes reflective of lead failure. CONCLUSION: RM may strengthen real-world assessment of lead failure, particularly for leads where patients do not undergo replacement.

A Policy Approach to Reducing Low-Value Device-Based Procedure Use.

Policy Points Low-value care is common in clinical practice, leading to patient harm and wasted spending. Much of this low-value care stems from the use of medical device-based procedures. We describe here a novel academic-policymaker collaboration in which evidence-based clinical coverage for device-based procedures is implemented through prior authorization-based policies for Louisiana's Medicaid beneficiary population. This process involves eight steps: 1) identifying low-value medical device-based procedures based on clinical evidence review, 2) quantifying utilization and reimbursement, 3) reviewing clinical coverage policies to identify opportunities to align coverage with evidence, 4) using a low-value device selection index, 5) developing an evidence synthesis and policy proposal, 6) stakeholder engagement and input, 7) policy implementation, and 8) policy evaluation. This strategy holds significant potential to reduce low-value device-based care.

Diffusion of Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in US Markets.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVADs) have been replacing intra-aortic balloon pumps for hemodynamic support during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), even though data supporting a benefit for hard clinical end points remain limited. We evaluated diffusion of PVADs across US markets and examined the association of market utilization of PVAD with mortality and cost. METHODS: Using the 2013 to 2019 Medicare data, we identified all patients aged ≥65 years who underwent PCI with either a PVAD or intra-aortic balloon pump. We used hospital referral region to define regional health care markets and categorized them in quartiles based on the proportional use of PVADs during PCI. Multilevel models were constructed to determine the association of patient, hospital, and market factors with utilization of PVADs and the association of PVAD utilization with 30-day mortality and cost. RESULTS: A total of 79 176 patients underwent PCI with either intra-aortic balloon pump (47 514 [60.0%]) or PVAD (31 662 [40.0%]). The proportion of PCI procedures with PVAD increased over time (17% in 2013 to 57% in 2019; P for trend, <0.001), such that PVADs overtook intra-aortic balloon pump for hemodynamic support during PCI in 2018. There was a large variation in PVAD utilization across markets (range, 0%-85%), which remained unchanged after adjustment of patient characteristics (median odds ratio, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.91-2.17]). The presence of acute myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, and emergent status was associated with a 45% to 50% lower odds of PVAD use suggesting that PVADs were less likely to be used in the sickest patients. Greater utilization of PVAD at the market level was not associated with lower risk mortality but was associated with higher cost. CONCLUSIONS: Although utilization of PVADs for PCI continues to increase, there is large variation in PVAD utilization across markets. Greater market utilization of PVADs was not associated with lower mortality but was associated with higher cost.

Medicare Coverage and Out-of-Pocket Costs of Quadruple Drug Therapy for Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Beta-blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), known as quadruple therapy, are recommended for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine Medicare coverage and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs of quadruple therapy and regimens excluding ARNI or SGLT2i. METHODS: This study assessed cost sharing, prior authorization, and step therapy in all 4,068 Medicare prescription drug plans in 2020. OOP costs were determined during the standard coverage period and annually based on the Medicare Part D standard benefit, inclusive of deductible, standard coverage, coverage gap, and catastrophic coverage. RESULTS: Tier ≥3 cost sharing was required by 99.1% of plans for ARNI and 98.5% for at least 1 SGLT2i. Only ARNI required prior authorization (24.3% of plans), and step therapy was required only for SGLT2is (5.4%) and eplerenone (0.8%). The median 30-day standard coverage OOP cost of quadruple therapy was $94 (IQR: $84-$100), including $47 (IQR: $40-$47) for ARNI and $45 (IQR: $40-$47) for SGLT2i. The median annual OOP cost of quadruple therapy was $2,217 (IQR: $1,956-$2,579) compared with $1,319 (IQR: $1,067-$1,675) when excluding SGLT2i and $1,322 (IQR: $1,025-$1,588) when including SGLT2i and substituting an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker for ARNI. The median 30-day OOP cost of generic regimens was $3 (IQR: $0-$9). CONCLUSIONS: Medicare drug plans restrict coverage of quadruple therapy through cost sharing, with OOP costs that are substantially higher than generic regimens. Quadruple therapy may be unaffordable for many Medicare patients with HFrEF unless medication prices and cost sharing are reduced.

Assessment of Hypothetical Out-of-Pocket Costs of Guideline-Recommended Medications for the Treatment of Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions, 2009 and 2019.

IMPORTANCE: Most adults 65 years or older have multiple chronic conditions. Managing these conditions with prescription drugs can be costly, particularly for older adults with limited incomes. OBJECTIVE: To estimate hypothetical out-of-pocket costs associated with guideline-recommended outpatient medications for the initial treatment of 8 common chronic diseases among older adults with Medicare prescription drug plans (PDPs). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cross-sectional study used 2009 and 2019 Medicare prescription drug plan formulary files to estimate annual out-of-pocket costs among hypothetical patients enrolled in Medicare Advantage or stand-alone Medicare Part D plans. A total of 3599 PDPs in 2009 and 3618 PDPs in 2019 were included after inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Costs associated with guideline-recommended medications for 8 of the most common chronic diseases (atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, and type 2 diabetes), alone and in 2 clusters of commonly comorbid conditions, were examined. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Annual out-of-pocket costs for each chronic condition, inflation adjusted to 2019 dollars. RESULTS: Among 3599 Medicare PDPs in 2009, 1998 were Medicare Advantage plans and 1601 were stand-alone plans; among 3618 Medicare PDPs in 2019, 2719 were Medicare Advantage plans and 899 were stand-alone plans. For an older adult enrolled in any Medicare PDP in 2019, the median annual out-of-pocket costs for individual conditions varied, from a minimum of $32 (IQR, $6-$48) for guideline-recommended management of osteoporosis (a decrease from $128 [IQR, $102-$183] in 2009) to a maximum of $1579 (IQR, $1524-$2229) for guideline-recommended management of atrial fibrillation (an increase from $91 [IQR, $73-$124] in 2009). For an older adult with a cluster of 5 commonly comorbid conditions (COPD, hypertension, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, and type 2 diabetes) enrolled in any PDP, the median out-of-pocket cost in 2019 was $1999 (IQR, $1630-$2564), a 12% decrease from $2284 (IQR, $1920-$3107) in 2009. For an older adult with all 8 chronic conditions (atrial fibrillation, COPD, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, heart failure, hypertension, osteoarthritis, and osteoporosis) enrolled in any PDP, the median out-of-pocket cost in 2019 was $3630 (IQR, $3234-$5197), a 41% increase from $2571 (IQR, $2185-$3719) in 2009. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cross-sectional study, out-of-pocket costs for guideline-recommended outpatient medications for the initial treatment of 8 common chronic diseases varied by condition. Although costs generally decreased between 2009 and 2019, particularly with regard to conditions for which generic drugs were available, out-of-pocket costs remained high and may have presented a substantial financial burden for Medicare beneficiaries, especially older adults with conditions for which brand-name drugs were guideline recommended.

Resource Utilization Following Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography and Stress Echocardiography in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Chest Pain.

This study aimed to assess long-term resource utilization and outcomes in patients with acute chest pain who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and stress echocardiography (SE). This was a retrospective, propensity-matched analysis of health insurance claims data for a national sample of privately insured patients over the period January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2014. There were 3,816 patients matched 1:1 who received either CCTA (n = 1,908) or SE (n = 1,908). Patients were seen in the emergency department (ED) between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011 with a primary diagnosis of chest pain and received either CCTA or SE within 72 hours as the first noninvasive test and maintained continuous enrollment in the database from the time of the ED encounter through December 31, 2014. All individual patient data were censored at 3 years. Compared with SE, CCTA was associated with higher odds of downstream cardiac catheterization (9.9% vs 7.7%, adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.63), future noninvasive testing (27.7% vs 22.3%, AOR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.42), and return ED visits or hospitalization for chest pain at 3 years (33.1% vs 24.2%, AOR 1.37, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.59). There were no statistically significant differences in new statin use (15.5% vs 14.9%, AOR 1.04, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.28), coronary revascularization (2.7% vs 2.2%, AOR 1.25, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.01) or hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (0.9% vs 0.9%, AOR 0.96, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.99). In conclusion, in patients who present to the ED with chest pain, CCTA is associated with increased downstream resource utilization compared with SE with no differences in long-term cardiovascular outcomes.