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.

Transparency in Coverage Data and Variation in Prices for Common Health Care Services.

This cross-sectional study describes the health care prices publicly posted by Humana and the price variations by geography, service, and other factors.

Private equity and healthcare firm behavior: Evidence from ambulatory surgery centers.

Healthcare firms regularly seek outside capital; yet, we have an incomplete understanding of external investor influence on provider behavior. We investigate the effects of private equity investment, divestment, and an initial public offering (IPO) on ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). Throughput is unchanged while charges grow by up to 50% for the same service mix. Affected ASCs witness declines in privately insured cases and rely more on Medicare business. Private equity increases physician ASC ownership stakes, and both simultaneously divest when the ASC is sold. Our findings appear more consistent with private equity influencing the financing of ASCs, rather than treatment approaches.

Mental Health Service Utilization Rates Among Commercially Insured Adults in the US During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with an elevated prevalence of mental health conditions and disrupted mental health care throughout the US. Objective: To examine mental health service use among US adults from January through December 2020. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used county-level service utilization data from a national US database of commercial medical claims from adults (age >18 years) from January 5 to December 21, 2020. All analyses were conducted in April and May 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Per-week use of mental health services per 10 000 beneficiaries was calculated for 5 psychiatric diagnostic categories: major depressive disorder (MDD), anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, adjustment disorders, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Changes in service utilization rates following the declaration of a national public health emergency on March 13, 2020, were examined overall and by service modality (in-person vs telehealth), diagnostic category, patient sex, and age group. Results: The study included 5 142 577 commercially insured adults. The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with more than a 50% decline in in-person mental health care service utilization rates. At baseline, there was a mean (SD) of 11.66 (118.00) weekly beneficiaries receiving services for MDD per 10 000 enrollees; this declined by 6.44 weekly beneficiaries per 10 000 enrollees (ß, -6.44; 95% CI, -8.33 to -4.54). For other disorders, these rates were as follows: anxiety disorders (mean [SD] baseline, 12.24 [129.40] beneficiaries per 10 000 enrollees; ß, -5.28; 95% CI, -7.50 to -3.05), bipolar disorder (mean [SD] baseline, 3.32 [60.39] beneficiaries per 10 000 enrollees; ß, -1.81; 95% CI, -2.75 to -0.87), adjustment disorders (mean [SD] baseline, 12.14 [129.94] beneficiaries per 10 000 enrollees; ß, -6.78; 95% CI, -8.51 to -5.04), and PTSD (mean [SD] baseline, 4.93 [114.23] beneficiaries per 10 000 enrollees; ß, -2.00; 95% CI, -3.98 to -0.02). Over the same period, there was a 16- to 20-fold increase in telehealth service utilization; the rate of increase was lowest for bipolar disorder (mean [SD] baseline, 0.13 [16.72] beneficiaries per 10 000 enrollees; ß, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.04-1.76) and highest for anxiety disorders (mean [SD] baseline, 0.20 [9.28] beneficiaries per 10 000 enrollees; ß, 9.12; 95% CI, 7.32-10.92). When combining in-person and telehealth service utilization rates, an overall increase in care for MDD, anxiety, and adjustment disorders was observed over the period. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of US adults, we found that the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a rapid increase in telehealth services for mental health conditions, offsetting a sharp decline in in-person care and generating overall higher service utilization rates for several mental health conditions compared with prepandemic levels.

Differences in telehealth during COVID-19 between commercial and Medicaid enrollees.

OBJECTIVES: To compare how in-person evaluation and management (E&M) visits and telehealth use differed during the COVID-19 pandemic between commercially insured and Medicaid enrollees, and to assess how insurance plan type-fee-for-service (FFS) vs managed care (MC)-and enrollee characteristics contributed to these differences. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis of 2019 and 2020 data from the commercially insured California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California Medicaid program (Medi-Cal). METHODS: We conducted unadjusted comparisons of per capita E&M visits and the share of visits conducted via telehealth by payer (CalPERS vs Medi-Cal) and plan type (FFS vs MC). We estimated linear regressions of telehealth use that adjusted for patient demographics, rurality, and internet access. Among Medi-Cal enrollees, we examined telehealth use differences based on race, language, and citizenship status. RESULTS: Regression-adjusted share of telehealth visits as a proportion of all E&M visits was 22.6% for CalPERS FFS patients (the reference group), 38.2% for Medi-Cal FFS patients, 46.0% for Medi-Cal MC patients, and 53.5% for CalPERS MC patients. Among Medi-Cal enrollees, telehealth use as a share of all E&M visits was higher among Spanish speakers, female enrollees, and rural enrollees. Across most demographic characteristics, Medi-Cal patients enrolled in FFS were less likely to receive telehealth compared with those enrolled in MC. CONCLUSIONS: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, California MC enrollees had higher rates of telehealth use compared with FFS enrollees, regardless of insurer. Among FFS enrollees, those enrolled in Medicaid had higher rates of telehealth use compared with those insured by CalPERS. Telehealth policies should be aware of this heterogeneity, as well as its implications for equity of telehealth access.

The Health Plan Environment In California Contributed To Differential Use Of Telehealth During The COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to substantial increases in the use of telehealth and virtual care in the US. Differential patient and provider access to technology and resources has raised concerns that existing health disparities may be extenuated by shifts to virtual care. We used data from one of the largest providers of employer-sponsored insurance, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, to examine potential disparities in the use of telehealth. We found that lower-income, non-White, and non-English-speaking people were more likely to use telehealth during the period we studied. These differences were driven by enrollment in a clinically and financially integrated care delivery system, Kaiser Permanente. Kaiser's use of telehealth was higher before and during the pandemic than that of other delivery models. Access to integrated care may be more important to the adoption of health technology than patient-level differences.

Prices Paid to Hospitals by Private Health Plans: Findings from Round 4 of an Employer-Led Transparency Initiative.

Because employer-sponsored spending comes from employee wages and benefits, employers have a fiduciary responsibility to administer benefits in the interest of participants. The lack of transparency of prices in the health care market limits the ability of employers to knowledgeably develop or implement benefit design decisions. This study uses medical claims data from a large population of privately insured individuals, including hospitals and other facilities from across the United States, and allows an easy comparison of hospital prices using a single metric. An important innovation of this study is that our data use agreements allow reporting on prices paid to hospitals and hospital systems (hospitals under joint ownership) identified by name.

Spatial modeling of vaccine deserts as barriers to controlling SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccine distribution is at risk of further propagating the inequities of COVID-19, which in the United States (US) has disproportionately impacted the elderly, people of color, and the medically vulnerable. We sought to measure if the disparities seen in the geographic distribution of other COVID-19 healthcare resources were also present during the initial rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: Using a comprehensive COVID-19 vaccine database (VaccineFinder), we built an empirically parameterized spatial model of access to essential resources that incorporated vaccine supply, time-willing-to-travel for vaccination, and previous vaccination across the US. We then identified vaccine deserts-US Census tracts with localized, geographic barriers to vaccine-associated herd immunity. We link our model results with Census data and two high-resolution surveys to understand the distribution and determinates of spatially accessibility to the COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: We find that in early 2021, vaccine deserts were home to over 30 million people, >10% of the US population. Vaccine deserts were concentrated in rural locations and communities with a higher percentage of medically vulnerable populations. We also find that in locations of similar urbanicity, early vaccination distribution disadvantaged neighborhoods with more people of color and older aged residents. CONCLUSION: Given sufficient vaccine supply, data-driven vaccine distribution to vaccine deserts may improve immunization rates and help control COVID-19.

COVID-19 has affected the elderly, people of color, and individuals with chronic illnesses more than the general population. Large barriers to accessing the COVID-19 vaccine could make this problem worse. We used a website called VaccineFinder, which has information on the location of most COVID-19 vaccine doses in the US, to measure vaccine accessibility in early 2021. We then identified vaccine deserts, defined as small US regions with poor access to the COVID-19 vaccine. We found that over 10% of the US lived in a vaccine desert. Overall, we found that vaccines were less available to people in rural areas, people of color, and individuals with chronic illnesses. It will be important to reverse this pattern and ensure enough vaccines are sent to these communities to help reduce the spread of COVID-19.

Going to the Doctor: Rideshare as Nonemergency Medical Transportation.

Ridesharing apps have changed how people get around. Its use in nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT) is nascent but possibly growing. The authors build on existing research on health care access to describe NEMT challenges that rideshare-based NEMT (RB-NEMT) may address for those who need NEMT by identifying rider and ride types most appropriate for RB-NEMT. Population estimates for these profiles are drawn from three nationally representative sources. The authors found that RB-NEMT could help reduce system strain and satisfy an unmet or poorly met need for on-demand cost-effective solutions within the NEMT ecosystem. Current RB-NEMT capabilities are most appropriate for individuals with medical conditions that result in the need to request rides and those who use Door2Door, Curb2Curb, or Area2Area (e.g., bus stop-to-bus stop) services. RB-NEMT is also most appropriate for in-patient and outpatient discharges, on-demand rides, requests for rides in which the scheduled mode failed to arrive, and rides requiring minimal assistance or monitoring. The authors recommend more research on (1) RB-NEMT outcomes and the efficiency of programs targeting potential users and (2) the size, distribution, and projections for required transportation services, especially for vulnerable populations. The authors argue that policymakers should recognize that (1) transportation is a fundamental component of health care access and NEMT is a central pathway of ensuring access to vulnerable populations and (2) rideshare is a generally unique, economical, efficient, and otherwise unoccupied niche of the NEMT ecosystem, although the specific pathways to incorporating rideshare into NEMT will vary by state.

Experiences of Health Centers in Implementing Telehealth Visits for Underserved Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results from the Connected Care Accelerator Initiative.

In early 2020, as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic emerged, widespread social-distancing efforts suspended much of the delivery of nonurgent health care. Telehealth proved to be a viable alternative to in-person care, at least on a temporary basis, and utilization skyrocketed. Many Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) serving low-income patients started delivering telehealth visits in high volume in March 2020 to help maintain access to care. This sudden and dramatic change in health care delivery posed numerous challenges. Health centers had to quickly make changes to technology, workflows, and staffing to accommodate telehealth visits. To support health centers in these efforts, the California Health Care Foundation established the Connected Care Accelerator (CCA) program, a quality improvement initiative that was launched in July 2020. RAND researchers evaluated the progress of FQHCs that participated in the CCA initiative by investigating changes in telehealth utilization and health center staff experiences with implementation. In this research, researchers review recent literature on telehealth implementation in safety net settings. They also present new information on the experiences of the 45 CCA health centers, drawing from data on visit trends, interviews with health center leaders, and surveys of health center providers and staff. Telehealth has the potential to increase access to care and deliver care that is more convenient and patient-centered; however, ongoing research is needed to ensure that telehealth is implemented in a way that ensures high-quality care and health equity.

Trends In Hospital Prices Paid By Private Health Plans Varied Substantially Across The US.

Commercial health plans pay higher prices than public payers for hospital care, which accounts for more than 5 percent of US gross domestic product. Crafting effective policy responses requires monitoring trends and identifying sources of variation. Relying on data from the Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System, we describe how commercial hospital payment rates changed relative to Medicare rates during 2012-19 and how trends differed by hospital referral region (HRR). We found that average commercial-to-Medicare price ratios were relatively stable, but trends varied substantially across HRRs. Among HRRs with high price ratios in 2012, ratios increased by 38 percentage points in regions in the top quartile of growth and decreased by 38 percentage points in regions in the bottom quartile. Our findings suggest that restraining the growth rate of HRR commercial hospital price ratios to the national average during our sample period would have reduced aggregate spending by $39 billion in 2019.

Treatment consolidation after vertical integration: Evidence from outpatient procedure markets.

Hospital ownership of physician practices has grown across the US, and these strategic decisions seem to drive higher prices and spending. Using detailed physician ownership information and a universe of Florida discharge records, we show novel evidence of hospital-physician integration foreclosure effects within outpatient procedure markets. Following hospital acquisition, physicians shift nearly 10% of their Medicare and commercially insured cases away from ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to hospitals and are up to 18% less likely to use an ASC at all. Altering physician choices over treatment setting can be in conflict with patient and payer cost, convenience, and quality preferences.

Female Physicians Earn An Estimated $2 Million Less Than Male Physicians Over A Simulated 40-Year Career.

Differences in income between male and female academic physicians are well known, but differences for community physicians and career differences in income have not been quantified. We used earnings data from 80,342 full-time US physicians to estimate career differences in income between men and women. The differences in annual income between male and female physicians that we observed in our simulations increased most rapidly during the initial years of practice. Over the course of a simulated forty-year career, male physicians earned an average adjusted gross income of $8,307,327 compared with an average of $6,263,446 for female physicians-an absolute adjusted difference of $2,043,881 and relative difference of 24.6 percent. Gender differences in career earnings were largest for surgical specialists ($2.5 million difference), followed by nonsurgical specialists ($1.6 million difference) and primary care physicians ($0.9 million difference). These findings imply that over the course of a career, female US physicians were estimated to earn, on average, more than $2 million less than male US physicians after adjustment for factors that may otherwise explain observed differences in income, such as hours worked, clinical revenue, practice type, and specialty.

Physician Compensation In Physician-Owned And Hospital-Owned Practices.

Physician practices are increasingly being acquired by hospitals and health systems. Despite evidence that this type of vertical integration is profitable for hospitals, the association between these acquisitions and the incomes of physicians in the acquired practices is unknown. We combined national survey data on physician practice ownership with data on physician income to examine whether hospital or health system ownership of physician practices was associated with differences in physician income during 2014-18. During the study period, hospital and health system ownership of physician practices increased by 89.2 percent, from 24.1 percent to 45.6 percent of all physicians in our sample. Among physician practices overall, vertical integration with hospitals or health systems was associated with, on average, 0.8 percent lower income compared with independent physicians after multivariable adjustment. In analyses by physician specialty, vertical integration of physician practices with hospitals or health systems was associated with lower income for nonsurgical specialists, no difference in income for primary care physicians, and slightly higher income for surgical specialists. Although vertical integration of physician practices is a rapidly growing trend, physicians might not directly benefit financially.

Clinic price reductions in a tiered total cost benefit design.

OBJECTIVES: To understand responses of primary care clinics to inclusion in a tiered total cost of care insurance benefit design. STUDY DESIGN: We used a qualitative design beginning with longitudinal analysis of administrative data on consumer clinic choice, clinic tier placement, and clinic actions, followed by in-depth interviews with key informants from clinics, administering health plans, and program administrators. METHODS: We collected data via semistructured interviews with purposively sampled key informants selected from clinics that prospectively reduced prices to move to, or remain in, a tier with lower cost sharing. Data from interview transcripts were coded using qualitative coding software and analyzed for thematic responses. RESULTS: Our findings suggest that clinics respond to the incentives in the tiered cost-sharing benefit design. Two motivations cited by clinics are (1) concern over developing a reputation as a high-cost clinic and (2) concern about the possible loss of patients due to higher cost sharing. Some clinics have agreed to price reductions or risk-sharing arrangements to move to, or remain in, a tier with lower cost sharing. Clinic informants reported that price reductions alone are not scalable. They sought greater transparency in tier assignment and increased data sharing to help them reduce costly or unnecessary utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Managers of primary care clinics respond to a tiered benefit design that holds them accountable for total cost of care. They respond by offering price discounts and expressing interest in reducing costly referrals and unnecessary use of services.

Prices Paid to Hospitals by Private Health Plans Are High Relative to Medicare and Vary Widely: Findings from an Employer-Led Transparency Initiative.

Large price discrepancies exist between what private health plans pay for hospital services and what Medicare pays. RAND Corporation researchers used data from three sources-self-insured employers, state-based all-payer claims databases, and health plans-to assess $13 billion in hospital spending in terms of hospital price levels, variation, and trends from 2015 through 2017 in 25 states. In this study, prices reflect the negotiated allowed amount paid per service, including amounts from both the health plan and the patient, with adjustments for the intensity of services provided. These negotiated prices are then compared with Medicare reimbursement rates for the same procedures and facilities to determine relative prices. Key audiences for this study are (1) self-insured employers that have participated in the study and that are assessing the reasonableness of the prices they are paying for hospital care, (2) other employers that are struggling with high and rising health care costs and that want to better understand patterns and trends in hospital prices, and (3) policymakers and researchers who are concerned with hospital pricing and price transparency. Employers can use this study to become better-informed purchasers, and this report illustrates for policymakers that it is feasible and worthwhile to use claims data from private health plans to measure and compare hospital prices at a high level of detail. This is the first broad-based study that reports prices paid by private health plans to hospitals identified by name and to groups of hospitals under joint ownership (hospital systems) identified by name.

Price Differences To Insurers For Infused Cancer Drugs In Hospital Outpatient Departments And Physician Offices.

The prices paid in 2019 by Blue Cross Blue Shield health plans in hospital outpatient departments were double those paid in physician offices for biologics, chemotherapies, and other infused cancer drugs (99-104 percent higher) and for infused hormonal therapies (68 percent higher). Had these plans excluded hospital clinics from their networks, channeling all of the infusions to physician offices, they would have saved $1.28 billion per year, or 26 percent of what they actually paid. Had they relied on cost-sharing incentives to channel infusions to physician offices-with either uniform 20 percent coinsurance or reference pricing-they would have realized savings but increased the financial burden on patients who received care at the higher-price hospital clinics. Under 20 percent coinsurance, patients' payment obligations for care at hospital clinics would have exceeded those for care in physician offices by a median of 67 percent for biologics, 72 percent for chemotherapies, 87 percent for hormonal therapies, and 75 percent for other cancer drugs. Large savings are potentially available to commercial insurers from shifting cancer infusion care to nonhospital settings, but cost-sharing burdens could become very high for patients.

Understanding the distributional impacts of health insurance reform: Evidence from a consumer cost-sharing program.

We examine the heterogeneous effects of reference pricing, a health insurance reform introduced by the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), on the distribution of spending by patients and insurers. Using medical claims data for CalPERS and a comparison group not subject to reference pricing, we use the changes-in-changes approach to estimate the quantile treatment effects of the program across different medical procedures. We find that the quantile treatment effects vary across the patient spending distributions, with a range of positive and negative estimates of the QTE, depending on the medical procedure considered. However, across all procedures, the insurer's spending distributions tend to shift left, with the largest reductions occurring in the right-tail of the spending distributions. These effects are not captured by mean estimates but have important policy implications.