Hospital Prices Grew Substantially Faster Than Physician Prices For Hospital-Based Care In 2007-14.

Evidence suggests that growth in providers' prices drives growth in health care spending on the privately insured. However, existing work has not systematically differentiated between the growth rate of hospital prices and that of physician prices. We analyzed growth in both types of prices for inpatient and hospital-based outpatient services using actual negotiated prices paid by insurers. We found that in the period 2007-14 hospital prices grew substantially faster than physician prices. For inpatient care, hospital prices grew 42 percent, while physician prices grew 18 percent. Similarly, for hospital-based outpatient care, hospital prices grew 25 percent, while physician prices grew 6 percent. A majority of the growth in payments for inpatient and hospital-based outpatient care was driven by growth in hospital prices, not physician prices. Our work suggests that efforts to reduce health care spending should be primarily focused on addressing growth in hospital rather than physician prices. Policy makers should consider a range of options to address hospital price growth, including antitrust enforcement, administered pricing, the use of reference pricing, and incentivizing referring physicians to make more cost-efficient referrals.

How alternative payment models in emergency medicine can benefit physicians, payers, and patients.

While there has been considerable effort devoted to developing alternative payment models (APMs) for primary care physicians and for episodes of care beginning with inpatient admissions, there has been relatively little attention by payers to developing APMs for specialty ambulatory care, and no efforts to develop APMs that explicitly focus on emergency care. In order to ensure that emergency care is appropriately integrated and valued in future payment models, emergency physicians (EPs) must engage with the stakeholders within the broader health care system. In this article, we describe a framework for the development of APMs for emergency medicine and present four examples of APMs that may be applicable in emergency medicine. A better understanding of how APMs can work in emergency medicine will help EPs develop new APMs that improve the cost and quality of care, and leverage the value that emergency care brings to the system.

Use of Point-of-Care Ultrasound in the Emergency Department: Insights From the 2012 Medicare National Payment Data Set.

OBJECTIVES: Point-of-care ultrasound is a valuable tool with potential to expedite diagnoses and improve patient outcomes in the emergency department. However, little is known about national patterns of adoption. This study examined nationwide point-of-care ultrasound reimbursement among emergency medicine (EM) practitioners and examined regional and practitioner level variations. METHODS: Data from the 2012 Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Fee-for-Service Provider Utilization and Payment Data include all practitioners who received more than 10 Medicare Part B fee-for-service reimbursements for any Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code in 2012. Odds ratios (ORs) and descriptive statistics were calculated to assess relationships between ultrasound reimbursement and practice location, nearby presence of an EM residency, and time elapsed since practitioner graduation. RESULTS: Of 52,928 unique EM practitioners, 391 (0.7%) received limited ultrasound reimbursements for a total of 16,389 scans in 2012. Urban counties had an OR of 5.4 (95% confidence interval, 3.8-7.8) for receiving point-of-care ultrasound reimbursements compared to rural counties. Counties with an EM residency had an OR of 84.7 (95% confidence interval, 42.6-178.8) for reimbursement compared to counties without. The OR for receiving reimbursement was independent of medical school graduation year (P = .83); however, recent graduates performed more scans (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: A small minority of EM practitioners received reimbursements for point-of-care ultrasound from Medicare beneficiaries. These practitioners were more likely to reside in urban and academic settings. Future efforts should assess the degree to which our findings reflect either low point-of-care ultrasound use or low rates of billing for ultrasound examinations that are performed.