Trends in Out-of-Pocket Costs for and Characteristics of Pharmacy-Dispensed Naloxone by Payer Type.

This study examines mean yearly out-of-pocket cost for naloxone dispensed from retail pharmacies by payer between 2018 and 2022 and by prescription characteristics and payer in 2022.

Trends in Health Care Coverage and Out-Of-Pocket Cost Barriers: A Gender Comparison.

Objective: The presence of disparities in access to health care and insurance coverage can have a tremendous impact on health care outcomes. Programs like the Affordable Care Act were implemented to improve health care access and to address the existing inequities. The objective of this study was to identify any disparities that exist between males and females regarding health care coverage and out-of-pocket cost to health care. Methods: This analysis was a cross-sectional study using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey data collected between 2013 and 2018. The primary predictor was sex assigned at birth (with the binary option of male vs. female). The primary outcome was adequate health coverage. Survey participants who indicated that they had health insurance with no out-of-pocket cost barriers to receiving medical care were considered to have adequate health coverage, while participants who did not meet these criteria were considered to have inadequate health coverage. Covariates measured were age, race/ethnicity, educational level, employment status, and annual household income. SAS survey procedures and weighting methods were used to measure the association between the sex and adequate health coverage, after controlling for covariates. Results: The data spanning 6 years included 2,249,749 adults, of whom 1,898,097 (84.4%) had adequate health coverage. Females made up 55.8% (N = 1,256,243) of the total sample. About 32.6% (N = 733,216) survey participants were aged ≥65 years. Most respondents, 77.6%, were White (Non-Hispanic). Across the 6-year period, females were more likely to have health insurance but with out-of-pocket costs that served as a barrier to their medical care (adjusted odds ratios with 95% CI from 2013 to 2018 were 1.36 [1.29-1.43], 1.38 [1.32-1.46], 1.31 [1.24-1.38], 1.33 [1.26-1.40], and 1.32 [1.25-1.40], respectively). Conclusions: Females were more likely than males to indicate an out-of-pocket cost barrier to medical care despite having health insurance.

The Increasing Adoption of Out-of-Pocket Cost Caps: Benefits, Unintended Consequences, and Policy Opportunities.

This Viewpoint discusses potential benefits and unintended consequences of out-of-pocket cost caps in Medicare and the employer-sponsored health insurance market and provides suggested policy opportunities to address shortcomings.

Prescription Drug Spending in Fee-for-Service Medicare, 2008-2019.

Importance: Prescription drug spending is a topic of increased interest to the public and policymakers. However, prior assessments have been limited by focusing on retail spending (Part D-covered drugs), omitting clinician-administered (Part B-covered) drug spending, or focusing on all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of their enrollment into prescription drug coverage. Objective: To estimate the proportion of health care spending contributed by prescription drugs and to assess spending for retail and clinician-administered prescriptions. Design, Setting, and Participants: Descriptive, serial, cross-sectional analysis of a 20% random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the United States from 2008 to 2019 who were continuously enrolled in Parts A (hospital), B (medical), and D (prescription drug) benefits, and not in Medicare Advantage. Exposure: Calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Net spending on retail (Part D-covered) and clinician-administered (Part B-covered) prescription drugs; prescription drug spending (spending on Part B-covered and Part D-covered drugs) as a percentage of total per-capita health care spending. Measures were adjusted for inflation and for postsale rebates (for Part D-covered drugs). Results: There were 3 201 284 beneficiaries enrolled in Parts A, B, and D in 2008 and 4 502 718 in 2019. In 2019, beneficiaries had a mean (SD) age of 71.7 (12.0) years, documented sex was female for 57.7%, and 69.5% had no low-income subsidies. Total per-capita spending was $16 345 in 2008 and $20 117 in 2019. Comparing 2008 with 2019, per-capita Part A spending was $7106 (95% CI, $7084-$7128) vs $7120 (95% CI, $7098-$7141), Part B drug spending was $720 (95% CI, $713-$728) vs $1641 (95% CI, $1629-$1653), Part B nondrug spending was $5113 (95% CI, $5105-$5122) vs $6702 (95% CI, $6692-$6712), and Part D net spending was $3122 (95% CI, $3117-$3127) vs $3477 (95% CI, $3466-$3489). The proportion of total annual spending attributed to prescription drugs increased from 24.0% in 2008 to 27.2% in 2019, net of estimated rebates and discounts. Conclusions and Relevance: In 2019, spending on prescription drugs represented approximately 27% of total spending among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part D, even after accounting for postsale rebates.

Health Care-Related Economic Burden of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome in the United States: Pregnancy-Related and Long-Term Health Consequences.

CONTEXT: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common endocrine disorder of reproductive-aged women, affecting approximately 5% to 20% of women of reproductive age. The economic burden of PCOS was previously estimated at approximately $3.7 billion annually in 2020 USD when considering only the costs of the initial diagnosis and of reproductive endocrine morbidities, without considering the costs of pregnancy-related and long-term morbidities. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the excess prevalence and economic burden of pregnancy-related and long-term health morbidities attributable to PCOS. METHODS: PubMed, EmBase, and Cochrane Library were searched, and studies were selected in which the diagnosis of PCOS was consistent with the Rotterdam, National Institutes of Health, or Androgen Excess and PCOS Society criteria, or that used electronic medical record diagnosis codes, or diagnosis based on histopathologic sampling. Studies that included an outcome of interest and a control group of non-PCOS patients who were matched or controlled for body mass index were included. Two investigators working independently extracted data on study characteristics and outcomes. Data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. The I2 statistic was used to assess inter-study heterogeneity. The quality of selected studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: The additional total healthcare-related economic burden of PCOS due to pregnancy-related and long-term morbidities in the United States is estimated to be $4.3 billion annually in 2020 USD. CONCLUSION: Together with our prior analysis, the economic burden of PCOS is estimated at $8 billion annually in 2020 USD.

Trends in Medicaid spending on inhalers in the United States, 2012-2018.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma are common respiratory diseases that impose a significant economic burden on Medicaid. Inhalers are the mainstay treatment for relieving symptoms and improving outcomes for COPD and asthma patients. OBJECTIVE: To describe the total spending and trends of Medicaid expenditures on inhalers between 2012 and 2018 in the United States. METHODS: We analyzed the deidentified data from the Medicaid Drug Spending Dashboard and utilization datasets from 2012 to 2018. We identified 9 classes of inhalers and described the Medicaid total spending on and relative annual changes for those inhalers. We also described the spending on available generic inhalers and compared the Medicaid spending by manufacturers during this time frame. RESULTS: Medicaid spent $26.2 billion on inhalers from 2012 to 2018. This spending increased by $2.5 billion (120%) over this time frame. During this specified period, the highest Medicaid spending was on the group of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-containing inhalers ($14.9 billion). Within this group, the inhaler class of ICS/long-acting beta-2 adrenoceptor agonists contributed to the highest Medicaid spending (53%), with a growth of 607% between 2012 and 2018. Of the $26.2 billion that Medicaid spent on inhalers, $35.5 million (less than 0.01%) was spent on 2 generic inhalers: fluticasone propionate with salmeterol and levalbuterol tartrate hydrofluoroalkane. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2012 and 2018, on average, $3.5 billion per year was spent by Medicaid on inhalers. Decreasing the price of inhalers by introducing more generic inhalers in the market can potentially reduce the cost burden on Medicaid. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by the American Foundation for Pharmaceutical Education (AFPE). The funders had no role in study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Trends in Use and Expenditures for Brand-name Statins After Introduction of Generic Statins in the US, 2002-2018.

Importance: The high and increasing expenditures for prescription medications in the US is a national problem. Objective: To explore the association of generic statin competition on relevant use and cost savings and to provide use and expenditure trends for all available statins for private and public payers and for out-of-pocket spending. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study evaluated data from the January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2018, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey by using a difference-in-differences analysis. Participants included noninstitutionalized individual statin users. Data were analyzed from November 1, 2020, to March 30, 2021. Exposures: The market entry of 5 generic statin medications (atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, simvastatin, lovastatin, and pravastatin). Main Outcomes and Measures: National- and individual-level reductions in the annual number of statin purchases and total expenditures across private insurance, public insurance (Medicaid and Medicare), and out-of-pocket spending (presented in 2018 US dollars). Results: Between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2018, an average of 21.35 million statins (95% CI, 16.7-25.5 million) were purchased annually, with an average total annual cost of $24.5 billion (95% CI, $18.2-$28.8 billion). The number of brand-name statin purchases decreased by 90.9% (95% CI, 56%-98%) nationally and 27.4% (95% CI, 13%-40%) individually after the end of market exclusivity. Among major payers, the end of market exclusivity was associated with individual cost savings of $370.00 (95% CI, $430.70-$309.20) for private insurers, $281.00 (95% CI, $346.80-$215.30) for Medicare, $72.34 (95% CI, $95.22-$49.46) for Medicaid, and $211.90 (95% CI, $231.20-$192.50) for out-of-pocket spending. Combining all payers, the decrease translates to $925.60 (95% CI, $1005.00-$846.40) of annual savings per individual and $11.9 billion (95% CI, $10.9-$13.0 billion) for the US. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this survey study suggest that full generic competition of statins was associated with significant cost savings across all major payers within the US health care system.

Assessment of hospitalization costs and its determinants in infants with clinical severe infection at a public tertiary hospital in Nepal.

Sepsis, an important and preventable cause of death in the newborn, is associated with high out of pocket hospitalization costs for the parents/guardians. The government of Nepal's Free Newborn Care (FNC) service that covers hospitalization costs has set a maximum limit of Nepalese rupees (NPR) 8000 i.e. USD 73.5, the basis of which is unclear. We aimed to estimate the costs of treatment in neonates and young infants fulfilling clinical criteria for sepsis, defined as clinical severe infection (CSI) to identify determinants of increased cost. This study assessed costs for treatment of 206 infants 3-59 days old, enrolled in a clinical trial, and admitted to the Kanti Children's Hospital in Nepal through June 2017 to December 2018. Total costs were derived as the sum of direct costs for bed charges, investigations, and medicines and indirect costs calculated by using work time loss of parents. We estimated treatment costs for CSI, the proportion exceeding NPR 8000 and performed multivariable linear regression to identify determinants of high cost. Of the 206 infants, 138 (67%) were neonates (3-28 days). The median (IQR) direct costs for treatment of CSI in neonates and young infants (29-59 days) were USD 111.7 (69.8-155.5) and 65.17 (43.4-98.5) respectively. The direct costs exceeded NPR 8000 (USD 73.5) in 69% of neonates with CSI. Age <29 days, moderate malnutrition, presence of any sign of critical illness and documented treatment failure were found to be important determinants of high costs for treatment of CSI. According to this study, the average treatment cost for a newborn with CSI in a public tertiary level hospital is substantial. The maximum limit offered for free newborn care in public hospitals needs to be revised for better acceptance and successful implementation of the FNC service to avert catastrophic health expenditures in developing countries like Nepal. Trial Registration: CTRI/2017/02/007966 (Registered on: 27/02/2017).

[Integrated care: the right way for the future?] / Integrated care: la strada giusta per il futuro?

Integrated Care (IC) is an "umbrella" term, under which numerous definitions are collected, which implies an attempt to coordinate and integrate fragmented and piecemeal health systems with new organizational arrangements. In fact, poor coordination of care is often a major obstacle for patients who access to health services. This adds on concern to the increasing demand for health and the greater proportion of healthcare expenditure induced by aging and chronic multiple comorbidity of patients. IC therefore sets itself the ambitious goal of harmonizing and optimizing patient care, both physical-mental and social, in order to obtain a continuous multi-organizational assistance. Although the principles on which IC is based are intuitive and simple, its extensive application is complicated and difficult to achieve. Within this article, we first try to define the concept of IC through a general review of the scientific literature on the subject. Then, we analyze the main economic and political criticalities of IC. Finally, we try to suggest recommendations about IC that can be extended to the health services of the member countries of the European Union.

Patient and Payer Incentives to Use Patented Brand-Name Drugs vs Authorized Generic Drugs in Medicare Part D.

Importance: In response to scrutiny over high drug prices, manufacturers of insulin and direct-acting antiviral agents for treating hepatitis C have recently introduced authorized generic alternatives to their patented brand-name products. These authorized generic drugs have list prices at least 50% lower than the list price of the brand-name drugs, which should result in savings to patients. However, it is unclear whether these authorized generic drugs are offered on Medicare Part D formularies because they may not provide savings to plans or Medicare. Objective: To assess Medicare Part D formulary coverage for 4 brand-name formulations of insulin and direct-acting antiviral agents and their authorized generic formulations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Formulary and Pricing Information Files from quarter 3 of 2020 and Medicare Part D plan enrollment for September 2020. Four patented brand-name drugs (sofosbuvir and velpatasvir fixed-dose combination tablets [Epclusa], ledipasvir and sofosbuvir tablets [Harvoni], insulin lispro [Humalog], and insulin aspart [Novolog]) and their authorized generic formulations for all Part D stand-alone prescription drug plans (n = 959) and Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans (n = 3148) were studied. Main Outcomes and Measures: Beneficiary-weighted formulary coverage of brand-name and authorized generic products; beneficiary out-of-pocket costs; and prerebate plan, manufacturer, and Medicare spending on brand-name and authorized generic products. Results: In quarter 3 of 2020, 97% of beneficiaries were in plans that covered brand-name drugs only or both brand-name and authorized generic drugs; approximately 3% were in plans that covered authorized generic drugs only. Observed authorized generic drug list prices were 67%, 62%, and 50% lower than list prices for Epclusa, Harvoni, and each brand-name insulin product, respectively. Medicare beneficiaries using authorized generic drugs could save $270 per year for 12 vials of Humalog and $2974 for a full course of Harvoni. Plans, however, have limited incentives to encourage authorized generic drug use because rebates for brands likely exceed savings available with authorized generic drugs, particularly for beneficiaries with spending that reaches the Medicare Part D coverage gap. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that authorized generic drugs for insulin and direct-acting antiviral agents may lower out-of-pocket spending for patients but are unlikely to provide savings for Part D plans or Medicare. Instead, these drugs allow manufacturers to offer products at a lower list price without materially lowering net prices or profits.

Trends in the Concentration and Distribution of Health Care Expenditures in the US, 2001-2018.

Importance: The concentration of health care expenditures has important implications for managing risk pools, drug benefit design, and care management. Objective: To examine trends in the concentration of health care spending in different population groups and expenditure categories in the US between 2001 and 2018. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a cross-sectional analysis of Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys (MEPS) collected between 2001 and 2018. The MEPS is a household survey of medical expenditures weighted to represent national estimates in the US. Respondents were a nationally representative sample of the US civilian noninstitutionalized population. Data analysis was performed from December 2020 to February 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome is the concentration of health care expenditures as measured by the cumulative percentage of health expenditure vs percentage of ranked population. This study reports trends in the distribution of populations across 4 concentration curve parameters: top 50% expenditure (high spenders), next 49% expenditure (medium spenders), next 1% expenditure (low spenders), and nonspenders. Results: The mean sample size of the MEPS surveys used in the analysis was 34 539 individuals, and the sample size varied between 30 461 and 39 165 individuals over the years studied. On the basis of data from 30 461 MEPS respondents (15 867 women [52.1%]; mean [SD] age, 38.9 [24.0] years) in 2018, the top 4.6% (95% CI, 4.3%-4.9%) of the US population by spending accounted for 50% of health care expenditures. Although this fraction varied across population groups or expenditure categories, it remained remarkably stable over time with one exception: the concentration of spending on prescription drugs. In 2001, one-half of all expenditures on prescription drugs were concentrated in 6.0% (95% CI, 5.6%-6.4%) of the US population, but by 2018, this proportion had decreased to 2.3% (95% CI, 2.1%-2.5%). This change does not appear to be associated with a change in the overall share of prescription drug expenses, which increased by only a small amount, from 20.4% in 2001 to 24.8% in 2018. Conclusions and Relevance: The overall concentration of health care expenditures remained stable between 2001 and 2018, but these findings suggest that there has been a sharp increase in the concentration of spending on prescription drugs in the US. This coincides with the genericization of many primary care drugs, along with a shift in focus of the biopharmaceutical industry toward high-cost specialty drugs targeted at smaller populations. If this trend continues, it will have implications for the minimum scale of risk-bearing and drug management needed to operate efficiently, as well as the optimal cost-sharing features of insurance products.

Tracking development assistance for health and for COVID-19: a review of development assistance, government, out-of-pocket, and other private spending on health for 204 countries and territories, 1990-2050.

BACKGROUND: The rapid spread of COVID-19 renewed the focus on how health systems across the globe are financed, especially during public health emergencies. Development assistance is an important source of health financing in many low-income countries, yet little is known about how much of this funding was disbursed for COVID-19. We aimed to put development assistance for health for COVID-19 in the context of broader trends in global health financing, and to estimate total health spending from 1995 to 2050 and development assistance for COVID-19 in 2020. METHODS: We estimated domestic health spending and development assistance for health to generate total health-sector spending estimates for 204 countries and territories. We leveraged data from the WHO Global Health Expenditure Database to produce estimates of domestic health spending. To generate estimates for development assistance for health, we relied on project-level disbursement data from the major international development agencies' online databases and annual financial statements and reports for information on income sources. To adjust our estimates for 2020 to include disbursements related to COVID-19, we extracted project data on commitments and disbursements from a broader set of databases (because not all of the data sources used to estimate the historical series extend to 2020), including the UN Office of Humanitarian Assistance Financial Tracking Service and the International Aid Transparency Initiative. We reported all the historic and future spending estimates in inflation-adjusted 2020 US$, 2020 US$ per capita, purchasing-power parity-adjusted US$ per capita, and as a proportion of gross domestic product. We used various models to generate future health spending to 2050. FINDINGS: In 2019, health spending globally reached $8·8 trillion (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 8·7-8·8) or $1132 (1119-1143) per person. Spending on health varied within and across income groups and geographical regions. Of this total, $40·4 billion (0·5%, 95% UI 0·5-0·5) was development assistance for health provided to low-income and middle-income countries, which made up 24·6% (UI 24·0-25·1) of total spending in low-income countries. We estimate that $54·8 billion in development assistance for health was disbursed in 2020. Of this, $13·7 billion was targeted toward the COVID-19 health response. $12·3 billion was newly committed and $1·4 billion was repurposed from existing health projects. $3·1 billion (22·4%) of the funds focused on country-level coordination and $2·4 billion (17·9%) was for supply chain and logistics. Only $714·4 million (7·7%) of COVID-19 development assistance for health went to Latin America, despite this region reporting 34·3% of total recorded COVID-19 deaths in low-income or middle-income countries in 2020. Spending on health is expected to rise to $1519 (1448-1591) per person in 2050, although spending across countries is expected to remain varied. INTERPRETATION: Global health spending is expected to continue to grow, but remain unequally distributed between countries. We estimate that development organisations substantially increased the amount of development assistance for health provided in 2020. Continued efforts are needed to raise sufficient resources to mitigate the pandemic for the most vulnerable, and to help curtail the pandemic for all. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Out-of-pocket medical expenses compared across five years for patients with one of five common cancers in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Patient medical out-of-pocket expenses are thought to be rising worldwide yet data describing trends over time is scant. We evaluated trends of out-of-pocket expenses for patients in Australia with one of five major cancers in the first-year after diagnosis. METHODS: Participants from the QSKIN Sun and Health prospective cohort Study with a histologically confirmed breast, colorectal, lung, melanoma, or prostate cancer diagnosed between 2011 and 2015 were included (n = 1965). Medicare claims data on out-of-pocket expenses were analysed using a two-part model adjusted for year of diagnosis, health insurance status, age and education level. Fisher price and quantity indexes were also calculated to assess prices and volumes separately. RESULTS: On average, patients with cancer diagnosed in 2015 spent 70% more out-of-pocket on direct medical expenses than those diagnosed in 2011. Out-of-pocket expenses increased significantly for patients with breast cancer (mean AU$2513 in 2011 to AU$6802 in 2015). Out-of-pocket expenses were higher overall for individuals with private health insurance. For prostate cancer, expenses increased for those without private health insurance over time (mean AU$1586 in 2011 to AU$4748 in 2014) and remained stable for those with private health insurance (AU$4397 in 2011 to AU$5623 in 2015). There were progressive increases in prices and quantities of medical services for patients with melanoma, breast and lung cancer. For all cancers, prices increased for medicines and doctor attendances but fluctuated for other medical services. CONCLUSION: Out-of-pocket expenses for patients with cancer have increased substantially over time. Such increases were more pronounced for women with breast cancer and those without private health insurance. Increased out-of-pocket expenses arose from both higher prices and higher volumes of health services but differ by cancer type. Further efforts to monitor patient out-of-pocket costs and prevent health inequities are required.

Patterns of Use of a Price Transparency Tool for Childbirth Among Pregnant Individuals With Commercial Insurance.

Importance: When introduced a decade ago, patient-facing price transparency tools had low use rates and were largely not associated with changes in spending. Little is known about how such tools are used by pregnant individuals in anticipation of childbirth, a shoppable service with increasing out-of-pocket spending. Objective: To measure changes over time in the patterns and characteristics of use of a price transparency tool by pregnant individuals, and to identify the association between price transparency tool use, coinsurance, and childbirth spending. Design, Setting, and Participants: This descriptive cross-sectional study of 2 cohorts used data from a US commercial health insurance company that launched a web-based price transparency tool in 2010. Data on all price transparency tool queries for 2 periods (January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2012, and January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2016) were obtained. The sample included enrollees aged 19 to 45 years who had a delivery episode during 2 periods (November 1, 2011, to December 31, 2012, or November 1, 2015, to December 31, 2016) and were continuously enrolled for the 10 months prior to delivery (N = 253 606). Exposures: Access to a web-based price transparency tool that provided individualized out-of-pocket price estimates for vaginal and cesarean deliveries. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were searches on the price transparency tool by delivery mode (vaginal or cesarean), timing (first, second, or third trimester), and individual characteristics (age at childbirth, rurality, pregnancy risk status, coinsurance exposure, area educational attainment, and area median household income). Another outcome was the association of out-of-pocket childbirth spending with price transparency tool use. Results: The sample included 253 606 pregnant individuals, of whom 131 224 (51.7%) were in the 2011 to 2012 cohort and 122 382 (48.3%) were in the 2015 to 2016 cohort. In the 2015 to 2016 cohort, the mean (SD) age was 31 years (5.2 years) and most individuals had coinsurance for delivery (94 251 [77.0%]). Price searching increased from 5.9% in the 2011 to 2012 cohort to 13.0% in the 2015 to 2016 cohort. In the 2015 to 2016 cohort, 43.9% of searchers' first price query was in their first trimester. The adjusted probability of searching was lower for individuals with a high-risk pregnancy due to a previous cesarean delivery (11.5%; 95% CI, 11.0%-12.1%) vs individuals with low-risk pregnancy (13.4%; 95% CI, 12.9%-14.0%). Use increased monotonically with coinsurance, from 9.2% (95% CI, 8.7%-9.8%) among individuals with no coinsurance to 15.0% (95% CI, 14.4%-15.5%) among individuals with 11% or higher coinsurance. After adjusting for covariates, searching was positively associated with out-of-pocket delivery episode spending. Among patients with 11% coinsurance or higher, early and late searchers spent more out of pocket ($59.57 [95% CI, $33.44-$85.96] and $73.33 [95% CI, $32.04-$115.29], respectively), compared with never searchers. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cross-sectional study indicate that the proportion of pregnant individuals who sought price information before childbirth more than doubled within the first 6 years of availability of a price transparency tool. These findings suggest that price information may help individuals anticipate their out-of-pocket childbirth costs.