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.

Medical Spending Among US Households With Children With a Mental Health Condition Between 2017 and 2021.

This cross-sectional study examines US household medical spending for children with a mental health condition between 2017 and 2021.

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.).

Changes in Employment in the US Health Care Workforce, 2016-2022.

This study examines the rate of employment in US health care in the postpandemic period, through the end of 2022.

Commercial Payments for COVID-19-Associated Inpatient Stays in 2020.

This cross-sectional study reports the allowed reimbursement amounts for inpatient COVID-19 care for different types of hospitals.

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.

Utilization and Spending on Mental Health Services Among Children and Youths With Commercial Insurance.

This cross-sectional study examines telehealth, in-person, and overall pediatric mental health service utilization and spending rates from January 2019 through August 2022 among a US pediatric population with commercial insurance.

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.

Telehealth and In-Person Mental Health Service Utilization and Spending, 2019 to 2022.

This cohort study assesses trends in monthly telehealth vs in-person utilization and spending rates for mental health services among commercially insured US adults before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The impact of COVID-19 shelter-in-place policy responses on excess mortality.

As a way of slowing COVID-19 transmission, many countries and U.S. states implemented shelter-in-place (SIP) policies. However, the effects of SIP policies on public health are a priori ambiguous. Using an event study approach and data from 43 countries and all U.S. states, we measure changes in excess deaths following the implementation of COVID-19 shelter-in-place (SIP) policies. We do not find that countries or U.S. states that implemented SIP policies earlier had lower excess deaths. We do not observe differences in excess deaths before and after the implementation of SIP policies, even when accounting for pre-SIP COVID-19 death rates.

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 effect of hospital discharge price increases on publicly reported measures of quality.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if increases in hospital discharge prices are associated with improvements in clinical quality or patient experience. DATA SOURCES: This study used Medicare cost report data and publicly available Medicare.gov Care Compare quality measures for approximately 3000 short-term care general hospitals between 2011 and 2018. STUDY DESIGN: We separately regressed quality measure scores on a lag of case mix adjusted discharge price, hospital fixed effects, and year indicators. Clinical quality measures included 30-day readmission rates for acute myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, hip and knee replacement, and pneumonia; risk-adjusted 30-day mortality rates for acute myocardial infarction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, and stroke; and 90-day complication rate for hip and knee replacement. Patient experience measures included the summary star rating and 10 domain measures reported through the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey. We tested for heterogeneous effects by hospital ownership, number of beds, the commercial share of overall discharges, and market concentration. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We linked hospitals identified in Medicare cost reports to Medicare.gov Care Compare quality measures. We excluded hospitals for which we could not identify a discharge price or that had an unrealistic price. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: There was no positive association between lagged discharge price and any clinical quality measure. For patient experience measures, a 2% increase in discharge price was not associated with overall patient satisfaction but was associated with small, statistically significant increases ranging from 0.01% to 0.02% (relative to mean scores) for seven of ten domain measures. There was a positive association for five of ten patient experience measures in competitive markets and one measure in both moderately concentrated and heavily concentrated markets. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that hospitals use higher prices to make investments in clinical quality; patient experience improved, but only negligibly.

Association between hospital-physician vertical integration and medication adherence rates.

OBJECTIVE: To test the association between vertical integration of primary care providers (PCPs) and adherence rates for anti-diabetics, renin angiotensin system antagonists (RASA), and statins. DATA SOURCES: Medicare Part B outpatient fee-for-service claims and Medicare Part D event data from 2014 to 2017. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated difference-in-differences regressions, comparing changes in adherence among patients with PCPs who converted from independent to integrated to changes among patients whose PCPs remained independent or integrated during the study period. To test for heterogenous impacts by patient demographics, we estimated triple difference regressions that included additional interaction terms by comorbidity rates, age group, and race/ethnicity. EXTRACTION METHODS: We extracted Medicare claims for adults with continuous enrollment in Parts B and D during the study period. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The proportion of patients who had a vertically integrated PCP increased by approximately 23% over the study period. Changes in adherence did not differ significantly between patients based on whether their PCP became integrated (Statins: 0.18, 95% CI -0.13, 0.49; RASA: -0.13, 95% CI -0.46, 0.19; Anti-Diabetics: -0.20, 95% CI -0.78, 0.38). Among patients with PCPs who became integrated, there were significant decreases in adherence for patients who were Black, Asian, Hispanic, or Native American, above 80 years old, and had greater comorbidities for all three classes. CONCLUSIONS: While there were no average changes in adherence following vertical integration of PCPs, health equity worsened, with significant declines in adherence for Black, Asian, Hispanic, and Native American patients, patients over 80 years old, and patients with greater comorbidities. These findings suggest that integration may reduce clinicians' incentives to compete based on the quality of care delivered. Given the price increases associated with integration, integration may be a net welfare loss.

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.

If Patients Don't Use Available Health Service Pricing Information, Is Transparency Still Important?

The US health system is replete with health service pricing idiosyncrasies and opacity unrelated to quality. Online tools intended to make health care purchasing resemble consumerism by making prices transparent have had little if any effect on improving health care market functioning and changing patient behavior. Although price transparency is still in its infancy, it holds promise to be as useful to patient-consumers as it has been to large purchasers (eg, employers) of health services and policymakers. But even if price information is not routinely used by patients, transparency of such information still has ethical importance in a market in which patients pay increasingly high out-of-pocket costs.

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.