Variability in expenses related to spine oncology care: comparison of payer-negotiated rates at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: As of 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requires all hospitals to publish their commercially negotiated prices. To our knowledge, price variation of spine oncology diagnosis and treatments has not been previously investigated. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to characterize the availability and variation of prices for spinal oncology services among National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers (NCI-DCC). STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. METHODS: Cancer centers were identified; those that did not provide patient care or participate in Medicare's Inpatient Prospective System were excluded. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted to gather commercially negotiated prices by searching online for "[center name] price transparency OR machine-readable file OR chargemaster." Data obtained was queried using 44 current procedural terminology (CPT) codes for imaging, procedures, and surgeries relevant to spine oncology. Comparison of prices was achieved by normalizing the median price for each service at each center to the estimated 2022 Medicare reimbursement for the center's Medicare Administrator Contractor. The ratios between the lowest and highest median commercial negotiated price within a center and across all centers were defined as "within-center ratio" and "across-center ratio" respectively. RESULTS: In total, 49 centers disclosed commercial payer-negotiated rates. Mean rate (±SD) for cervical corpectomy was $9,134 (±$10,034), thoracic laminectomy for neoplasm excision was $5,382 (±$5502), superficial bone biopsy was $1,853 (±$1,717), and single-photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT) was $813 (±$232). Within-center ratios ranged from 5.0 (SPECT scan) to 17.8 (radiofrequency bone ablation). Across-center ratios (for codes with > 10 centers reporting) ranged from 9.0 (corpectomy, thoracic, lateral extra-cavitary) to 418.7 (anterior approach cervical corpectomy). CONCLUSIONS: Price transparency for spinal oncology remains elusive despite recent CMS regulatory oversight, with marked heterogeneity in the quality of published rates complicating patients' ability to "shop" for care. Additionally, there continues to be significant variation in commercial rates for spine oncology diagnosis and treatment. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Despite regulation by CMS, prices for spinal oncology services are not uniformly available to patients and vary between NCI-DCC. The findings of this manuscript present potential barriers for patients to compare and obtain affordable care.

Assessing the Accuracy and Reliability of AI-Generated Responses to Patient Questions Regarding Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: In today's digital age, patients increasingly rely on online search engines for medical information. The integration of large language models such as GPT-4 into search engines such as Bing raises concerns over the potential transmission of misinformation when patients search for information online regarding spine surgery. METHODS: SearchResponse.io, a database that archives People Also Ask (PAA) data from Google, was utilized to determine the most popular patient questions regarding 4 specific spine surgery topics: anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, lumbar fusion, laminectomy, and spinal deformity. Bing's responses to these questions, along with the cited sources, were recorded for analysis. Two fellowship-trained spine surgeons assessed the accuracy of the answers on a 6-point scale and the completeness of the answers on a 3-point scale. Inaccurate answers were re-queried 2 weeks later. Cited sources were categorized and evaluated against Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria. Interrater reliability was measured with use of the kappa statistic. A linear regression analysis was utilized to explore the relationship between answer accuracy and the type of source, number of sources, and mean JAMA benchmark score. RESULTS: Bing's responses to 71 PAA questions were analyzed. The average completeness score was 2.03 (standard deviation [SD], 0.36), and the average accuracy score was 4.49 (SD, 1.10). Among the question topics, spinal deformity had the lowest mean completeness score. Re-querying the questions that initially had answers with low accuracy scores resulted in responses with improved accuracy. Among the cited sources, commercial sources were the most prevalent. The JAMA benchmark score across all sources averaged 2.63. Government sources had the highest mean benchmark score (3.30), whereas social media had the lowest (1.75). CONCLUSIONS: Bing's answers were generally accurate and adequately complete, with incorrect responses rectified upon re-querying. The plurality of information was sourced from commercial websites. The type of source, number of sources, and mean JAMA benchmark score were not significantly correlated with answer accuracy. These findings underscore the importance of ongoing evaluation and improvement of large language models to ensure reliable and informative results for patients seeking information regarding spine surgery online amid the integration of these models in the search experience.