Rates of price disclosure associated with the surgical treatment of early-stage breast cancer one year after implementation of federal regulations.

PURPOSE: Mastectomy, breast reconstruction (BR) and breast conserving therapy (BCT) are core components of the treatment paradigm for early-stage disease but are differentially associated with significant financial burdens. Given recent price transparency regulations, we sought to characterize rates of disclosure for breast cancer-related surgery, including mastectomy, BCT, and BR (oncoplastic reconstruction, implant, pedicled flap and free flap) and identify associated factors. METHODS: For this cross-sectional analysis, cost reports were obtained from the Turquoise Health price transparency platform for all U.S. hospitals meeting national accreditation standards for breast cancer care. The Healthcare Cost Report Information System was used to collect facility-specific data. Addresses were geocoded to identify hospital referral and census regions while data from CMS was also used to identify the geographic practice cost index. We leveraged a Poisson regression model and relevant Medicare billing codes to analyze factors associated with price disclosure and the availability of an OOP price estimator. RESULTS: Of 447 identified hospitals, 221 (49.4%) disclosed prices for mastectomy and 188 42.1%) disclosed prices for both mastectomy and some form of reconstruction including oncoplastic reduction (n = 184, 97.9%), implants (n = 187, 99.5%), pedicled flaps (n = 89, 47.3%), and free flaps (n = 81, 43.1%). Non-profit status and increased market competition were associated with price nondisclosure. 121 hospitals (27.1%) had an out-of-pocket price estimator that included at least one breast surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Most eligible hospitals did not disclose prices for breast cancer surgery. Distinct hospital characteristics were associated with price disclosure. Breast cancer patients face persistent difficulty in accessing costs.

The relationship between community social risk factors and regional hospital-reported cash, negotiated, and chargemaster prices for 14 common services.

BACKGROUND: Social risk factors are key drivers of the geographic variation in spending in the United States but little is known how community-level social risk factors are associated with hospital prices. Our objective was to describe the relationship between regional hospital-reported prices and social risk factors by price type (chargemaster, cash, commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid). METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis used newly available hospital-reported prices from acute general hospitals in 2022. The prices were for 14 common services. Prices were winsorized at 98%, wage index-adjusted, standardized by service, and aggregated to hospital service areas (HSAs). For social risk, we used 23 measures across 5 domains of social risk (socioeconomic position; race, ethnicity, and culture; gender; social relationships; and residential and community context). Spearman's correlation was used to estimate associations between median prices and social risk by price type. RESULTS: Prices were reported from 2,386 acute general hospitals in 45% (1,502 of 3,436) HSAs. Correlations between regional prices and other social risk factors varied by price type (range: -0.19 to 0.31). Chargemaster and cash prices were significantly correlated with the most community characteristics (10 of 23, 43%) followed by commercial prices (8, 35%). Medicare and Medicaid prices were only significantly correlated with 1 measure (all p < 0.01). All price types were significantly correlated with the percentage of uninsured (all p < 0.01). Chargemaster, cash, and commercial prices were positively correlated with percentage of Hispanic residents, residents with limited English proficiency, and non-citizens (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: While regional correlations between prices and social risk factors were weak across all prices, chargemaster, cash, and commercial prices were more like closely aligned with community-level social risk factors than the two public payers (Medicare and Medicaid). Chargemaster, cash, and commercial hospital prices appeared to be higher in socially disadvantaged communities. Further research is needed to clarify the relationship between prices and community social risk factors.

Usability of Health Care Price Transparency Data in the United States: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Increasing health care expenditure in the United States has put policy makers under enormous pressure to find ways to curtail costs. Starting January 1, 2021, hospitals operating in the United States were mandated to publish transparent, accessible pricing information online about the items and services in a consumer-friendly format within comprehensive machine-readable files on their websites. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to analyze the available files on hospitals' websites, answering the question-is price transparency (PT) information as provided usable for patients or for machines?-and to provide a solution. METHODS: We analyzed 39 main hospitals in Florida that have published machine-readable files on their website, including commercial carriers. We created an Excel (Microsoft) file that included those 39 hospitals along with the 4 most popular services-Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 45380, 29827, and 70553 and Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) 807-for the 4 most popular commercial carriers (Health Maintenance Organization [HMO] or Preferred Provider Organization [PPO] plans)-Aetna, Florida Blue, Cigna, and UnitedHealthcare. We conducted an A/B test using 67 MTurkers (randomly selected from US residents), investigating the level of awareness about PT legislation and the usability of available files. We also suggested format standardization, such as master field names using schema integration, to make machine-readable files consistent and usable for machines. RESULTS: The poor usability and inconsistent formats of the current PT information yielded no evidence of its usefulness for patients or its quality for machines. This indicates that the information does not meet the requirements for being consumer-friendly or machine readable as mandated by legislation. Based on the responses to the first part of the experiment (PT awareness), it was evident that participants need to be made aware of the PT legislation. However, they believe it is important to know the service price before receiving it. Based on the responses to the second part of the experiment (human usability of PT information), the average number of correct responses was not equal between the 2 groups, that is, the treatment group (mean 1.23, SD 1.30) found more correct answers than the control group (mean 2.76, SD 0.58; t65=6.46; P<.001; d=1.52). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent machine-readable files across all health systems facilitate the development of tools for estimating customer out-of-pocket costs, aligning with the PT rule's main objective-providing patients with valuable information and reducing health care expenditures.

Counselling with a focus on product and price transparency for over-the-counter headache medicines: A simulated patient study in community pharmacies in Munich, Germany.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, over-the-counter (OTC) medicines may only be dispensed by community pharmacies (CPs). German CPs must ensure 'adequate' counselling, including the cost of medicines. Along with information gathering and advice giving as classic aspects of counselling, the aim was also to investigate counselling indicators of product and price transparency. METHODS: The cross-sectional study was based on the covert simulated patient (SP) methodology and was conducted in a random sample of CPs stratified by districts in the major German city of Munich. Each of the 178 selected CPs was visited once by one of five trained female students. They simulated a symptom-based sub-scenario 1 with a request for an OTC medicine for a headache and a sub-scenario 2 with standardised information regarding product and price transparency. The assessment, completed immediately postvisit by the SPs, included a total of 23 items. RESULTS: All 178 scheduled visits were completed successfully. The median counselling score with the classic items was 3.0 out of 12 points (interquartile range [IQR] 4.25) and when expanded by items for product and price transparency the score was 4.0 out of 14 points (IQR 4.00). A selection of medicines was offered unsolicited in 38.2% of the visits and in 5.6% of the visits voluntary price information was provided before the transaction. A request for a cheaper medicine led to a significant price reduction (Wilcoxon signed-rank test; p < 0.001, r = 0.869). CONCLUSION: Due to the below-average level of counselling, the regional chambers of pharmacists are recommended to initiate measures for improvement. There is also potential for optimisation with regard to product and price transparency as an important extension of the classic counselling aspects. It is therefore recommended that the government raise customers' awareness of the cost of medicines.

Where Do Real-Time Prescription Benefit Tools Fit in the Landscape of High US Prescription Medication Costs? A Narrative Review.

The problem of unaffordable prescription medications in the United States is complex and can result in poor patient adherence to therapy, worse clinical outcomes, and high costs to the healthcare system. While providers are aware of the financial burden of healthcare for patients, there is a lack of actionable price transparency at the point of prescribing. Real-time prescription benefit (RTPB) tools are new electronic clinical decision support tools that retrieve patient- and medication-specific out-of-pocket cost information and display it to clinicians at the point of prescribing. The rise in US healthcare costs has been a major driver for efforts to increase medication price transparency, and mandates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for Medicare Part D sponsors to adopt RTPB tools may spur integration of such tools into electronic health records. Although multiple factors affect the implementation of RTPB tools, there is limited evidence on outcomes. Further research will be needed to understand the impact of RTPB tools on end results such as prescribing behavior, out-of-pocket medication costs for patients, and adherence to pharmacologic treatment. We review the terminology and concepts essential in understanding the landscape of RTPB tools, implementation considerations, barriers to adoption, and directions for future research that will be important to patients, prescribers, health systems, and insurers.

Informed consent, price transparency, and disclosure.

In the American medical system, patients do not know the final price of treatment until long after the treatment is given, at which point it is too late to say "no." I argue that without price disclosure many, perhaps all, tokens of consent in clinical medicine fall below the standard of valid, informed consent. This is a sweeping and broad thesis. The reason for this thesis is surprisingly simple: medical services rarely have prices attached to them that are known to the patient prior to treatment. Yet, for many patients, knowledge of the price is relevant to whether they would give consent. If informed consent requires that patients know all information about their treatment that is relevant to their decision, then consent to a medical intervention in the absence of the price is not informed consent.

Ongoing Challenges With Price Transparency in Hospital Charges for Hand Procedures.

In 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a historic rule on price transparency that aimed to better inform Americans about their health care costs by requiring hospitals to publicly provide pricing information on their items and services. In this review article, we describe the current gaps in transparency that persist after the implementation of the rule, from incomplete pricing files to noncompliance despite the issuance of monetary penalties by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Price transparency is vital for hand and upper extremity procedures, given their cost variation and patient desire for more financial discussions with their physicians regarding these procedures. Further improvements and interventions by various stakeholders are necessary to improve the current state of hospital price transparency and cost information for these patients and for anyone who seeks to make informed health care decisions. Policymakers should enforce stronger financial interventions and penalties and promote the use of bundled payments to facilitate better compliance by hospitals through a more expanded and accessible display of health care service costs. To help increase health care financial literacy among consumers, hand surgeons and hospital staff should engage in more dialog regarding health care prices and financial considerations with their patients.

Association Between Cancer Center Accreditation and Compliance With Price Disclosure of Common Oncologic Surgical Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Cancer center accreditation status is predicated on several factors that measure high-value healthcare. However, price transparency, which is critical in healthcare decisions, is not a quality measure included for accreditation. We reported the rates of price disclosure of surgical procedures for 5 cancers (breast, lung, cutaneous melanoma, colon, and prostate) among hospitals ranked by the American College of Surgeon's Commission on Cancer (ACS-CoC). METHODS: We identified nonfederal, adult, and noncritical access ACS-CoC accredited hospitals and used the commercial Turquoise Health database to perform a cross-sectional analysis of hospital price disclosures for 5 common oncologic procedures (mastectomy, lobectomy, wide local excision for cutaneous melanoma, partial colectomy, prostatectomy). Publicly available financial reporting data were used to compile facility-specific features, including bed size, teaching status, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid wage index, and patient revenues. Modified Poisson regression evaluated the association between price disclosure and ACS-CoC accreditation after adjusting for hospital financial performance. RESULTS: Of 1,075 total ACS-CoC accredited hospitals, 544 (50.6%) did not disclose prices for any of the surgical procedures and only 313 (29.1%) hospitals reported prices for all 5 procedures. Of the 5 oncologic procedures, prostatectomy and lobectomy had the lowest price disclosure rates. Disclosing and nondisclosing hospitals significantly differed in ACS-CoC accreditation, ownership type, and teaching status. Hospitals that disclosed prices were more likely to receive Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments, have lower average charge to cost ratios (4.53 vs 5.15; P<.001), and have lower net hospital margins (-2.03 vs 0.44; P=.005). After adjustment, a 1-point increase in markup was associated with a 4.8% (95% CI, 2.2%-7.4%; P<.001) higher likelihood of nondisclosure. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the hospitals did not disclose prices for any of the 5 most common oncologic procedures despite ACS-CoC accreditation. It remains difficult to obtain price transparency for common oncologic procedures even at centers of excellence, signaling a discordance between quality measures visible to patients.

Not Clearing the Air: Hospital Price Transparency for a Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.

INTRODUCTION: In 2019, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) established a new requirement that all hospitals publish information on the standard costs of services provided. Increased price transparency allows patients to compare healthcare costs and make informed decisions about their care. We investigated compliance with this rule with regards to laparoscopic cholecystectomy, a commonly performed operation and one of the 70 shoppable services (SSs) included in the CMS requirement, among prominent hospitals in the United States. METHODS: The 2021-2022 US News "Best Hospitals for Gastroenterology and GI Surgery" was used to identify the top 50 hospitals for gastrointestinal surgery. Each hospital's website was assessed for the presence of a machine-readable file (MRF) as required by CMS. Each MRF was then evaluated for inclusion of all seven required elements: description of item/service, gross charge, payer-specific negotiated charge, deidentified minimum and maximum negotiated charges, discounted cash price, and billing code. The presence of a consumer-friendly display of SSs was also evaluated. The Current Procedural Terminology code 47562 (removal of gallbladder with an endoscope) was used to search for all six required elements: payer-specific negotiated charge, discounted cash price, de-identified minimum and maximum negotiated charges, campus location of the SS, and billing code. The SS display was further evaluated for provision of additional information on ancillary charges, which are recommended but not required. The MRF and SS were also evaluated for accessibility and date of last update. Hospitals were analyzed according to rank. Compliance with CMS requirements was compared between hospitals. RESULTS: Fifty one hospitals were included. Of these 51 hospitals, one (2%) provided all the required information for both MRF and SS, 44 (86%) did not provide all necessary components of both the MRF and SS, six (12%) had all necessary elements of an MRF only, and two (4%) had all necessary elements of the SS only. The MRF was accessible in 80% (41) of studied hospitals and 76% (39) provided a gross charge but just 35% (18) of hospitals included the discounted cash price. The SS specified location for all hospitals, indicated a billing code in 96% (49), and provided a payer-specific charge in 96% (48), but less often provided de-identified minimum (30; 59%) and maximum (30; 59%) charges. Thirty nine (76%) hospitals reported that the listed price included an ancillary charge. There was no significant difference between hospitals in having all required elements of both the MRF and SS or the MRF only or SS only. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals are providing healthcare consumers with standard charge information, although with significant variation in what is disclosed. There is no association between hospital reputation and provision of standard charge information.

Do You Get What You Pay For? The Relationship of Price and Quality in Hospital Provided Procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Starting in 2021, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services required hospitals to provide pricing information to allow consumers to compare prices. Patients perceived that the quality of these services also impacts decision-making. This study examines the relationship between procedure price and quality from the patients' perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Unnegotiated prices of procedures were extracted from hospital websites. Hospital quality was defined as the U.S. News & World Report's score for the specialty performing the procedure. Regional differences in markets were corrected with the Wage Price Index. Spearman's correlations were used for analysis between price and quality. RESULTS: Overall, 67% (1225/1815) of hospitals had a pricing document. Compliance by procedure was poor with a low of 7% for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 93000 and a high of 27% for CPTs 93452 and 62323. Wide variability of prices for all procedures was noted. The smallest difference in price range listed was for CPT 45380 with a 32× difference between the minimum and maximum ($310-$10,023) with the first, second, and third quartiles being $1457, $2759, and $4276, respectively. The largest difference in price range was for CPT 55700 with a 5036× difference between the minimum and maximum ($9-$45,322) with the first, second, and third quartiles being $1638, $2971, and $5342, respectively. Correlation between price and quality was low, with the strongest being rho = 0.369 (P = 0.02) for CPT 93000. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with price transparency was low with large variability in prices for the same procedure. There was no correlation between hospital price and quality. As currently implemented, poor compliance and wide price variability may limit patients' understanding of procedure costs.

The impact of price transparency and competition on hospital costs: a research on all-payer claims databases.

BACKGROUND: Public reporting has been considered effective in reducing health care costs by mitigating information asymmetry in the market as payers have incorporated publicly available information mandates into pay-for-performance programs and value-based purchasing. Therefore, hospitals have faced increasing pressures to provide price transparency. Despite the widespread promotion of healthcare transparency, the effectiveness of public reporting has not yet been sufficiently understood. This study analyzed the impact of transparency policy and competition on hospital costs by taking the state operations of all-payer claims databases (APCDs) as a case of interest. METHODS: We employed a fixed-effects regression, which allows the generation of hospital-specific effects, in accordance with the suggestion by the Hausman test. The study samples comprise nonprofit and for-profit general acute care hospitals in the United States for 2011-2017. The finalized dataset ranges from 3547 observations in 2011 to 3405 observations in 2015 after removing missing values. RESULTS: We found that hospitals in the states with APCDs tend to bear higher average operating expenses than those without APCDs, which may indicate that states maintaining higher healthcare expenditures are more attentive to a price transparency initiative and tend to adopt APCDs. With regard to competition, the results showed that weak market competition is significantly associated with higher operating costs, supporting the traditional competition theory. However, the combined effect of APCDs and competition did not indicate a significant association with operating expenses. Further investigation showed a continued tendency for a weak intensity of competition to be linked to lower hospital operating costs in states without APCDs. For those located in non-APCD adopted states, market consolidation helped hospitals coordinate care more effectively, economize operating costs, and enjoy economies of scale due to their large size. Similar trends did not appear in APCD-adopted states except for in 2015. CONCLUSIONS: This study observed limited evidence of the impact of APCDs and market competition. Our findings suggest that states need to make multifaceted efforts to contain hospital costs, not solely depending on the rollout of cost information or market competition. Market concentration may lead to coordinated care or cost economization in some cases. Still, the existing literature also demonstrates some potentially harmful impacts of increased concentration in the healthcare market, such as inefficient use of resources, unilateral market power, and deterrence of innovation. The introduction of a price transparency tool may require additional policy actions that take market competition into consideration.

Hospital Charges Are Not Associated With Episode-of-Care Costs or Complications After Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) now requires hospitals to publish charges for commonly performed procedures. This study aimed to evaluate compliance with the price transparency mandate and to determine if there is a correlation between hospital charges and episode-of-care claims costs and outcomes after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: We identified a consecutive series of 2476 Medicare patients who underwent primary THA or TKA from 2018 to 2019 at one of 18 hospitals. Each hospital website was explored to assess compliance with the new price transparency requirements. Demographics, comorbidities, complications, and readmissions were recorded. Ninety-day episode-of-care claims costs were calculated using CMS claims data. Multivariate regression was performed to determine whether hospital charges had any association with complications, readmissions, or episode-of-care costs. RESULTS: There was no correlation between published hospital charges and inpatient costs (r = 0.087), postacute care costs (r = 0.126), or episode-of-care costs (r = 0.131). When controlling for demographics and comorbidities, there was no association between published charges and complications (P = .433) or readmissions (P = .141). All hospitals posted some shoppable services information online, but only 7 (39%) were fully compliant by publishing all price data. Of the 11 hospitals (61%) publishing hospital THA and TKA charges, the mean charge was $48,325 (range, $12,625-$79,531). CONCLUSION: Published charges for TKA and THA had no correlation with episode-of-care claims costs and were not associated with clinical outcomes. Despite efforts by CMS to increase price transparency, few hospitals were fully compliant, and a wide range in published charges was found.

Price Transparency for Primary Hip & Knee Arthroplasty: An Overview of the Top 50 US News and World Report Orthopedic Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has mandated all hospitals to publish the charges of 300 common procedures to provide price transparency. The aims of our study are to evaluate 50 top orthopedic hospitals to determine compliance with this mandate and to assess the ease of finding cost information for arthroplasty procedures. METHODS: The websites of the top 50 US News and World Report (USNWR) orthopedic hospitals were searched to find publicly accessible procedural charges. Data included the number of clicks to locate pricing documents, number of files provided, and number of data rows pertaining to arthroplasty. Charge data was queried based on Diagnosis related group (DRG) codes (469, 470), Current Procedural Technology (CPT) codes (27130, 27477), and keyword searches ("arthroplasty", "total hip", and "total knee"). RESULTS: Forty-four (88%) of the top 50 USNWR Orthopedic institutions had publicly accessible files containing cost information. Thirty three of the 44 institutions provided results with DRG search while less than 10 institutions used CPT and keyword searches. There was an average of 226,190 (range 304-1,121,876) rows of data per file. Average charges varied depending on the use of DRG, CPT or keyword searches ($6,663-$117,072). CONCLUSION: The majority of compliant hospitals published large data files requiring the use of DRG codes to find cost information with extreme variation in resultant charges provided. These findings underscore the lack of direct patient benefit afforded by the current mandate, as pricing determinations require expert knowledge in medical coding and have a high variability in the reported charges.

Refinement of the Affordable Care Act.

Regardless of what legislation the federal government adopts to address health insurance coverage for nonelderly Americans, private insurance will likely play a major role. This article begins by listing some of the major reasons critics dislike the Affordable Care Act (ACA), then discusses the validity of these concerns from an economics perspective. Criticisms of the ACA include the increased role of government in health care, the ACA's implicit income redistribution, and concern about high and rising insurance premiums. Suggestions for refining the ACA and its market-based insurance system are then offered, with the goals of lowering insurance premiums, improving coverage rates, and/or addressing the concerns of ACA critics. Americans favor the increase in insurance coverage that has occurred under the ACA. In order to sustain this level of coverage, steps to lower Marketplace premiums through a variety of strategies affecting potential enrollees, insurers, and healthcare providers are offered.

Price Transparency: Empowering Patient Choice and Promoting Provider Competition.

In light of recent health policy efforts to promote price transparency, this perspective reviews the challenges and benefits of price transparency. These price transparency efforts include the recent executive order and associated rulemaking directing providers to disclose negotiated and out-of-pocket costs for "shoppable" healthcare services. First, we explore the previous efforts of states and health plans targeted at price transparency, reviewing lessons for future implementation. Second, we address the value of price transparency in light of various policy concerns and objections. Finally, we jointly hypothesize potential effects of and opportunities presented by price transparency for patients, physicians, and other healthcare industry stakeholders.

Multi stakeholders of health and industries perspectives on medicine price transparency initiative in private health care settings in Malaysia.

INTRODUCTION: Medicine price transparency initiatives provide public or government on information about the product's prices and the components that may influence the prices, such as volume and product quality. In Malaysia, medicine price transparency has become part of the government's strategies in ensuring adequate, continuous and equitable access to quality, safe, effective and affordable medicines. Since the effect of medicine price transparency depend critically on how prices are presented, this study aims to evaluate the stakeholders' perspective of medicine price transparency practice in the private healthcare system in Malaysia. METHODS: This study was conducted as face-to-face, semi-structured interview. Respondents from private pharmaceutical industries, community pharmacists, general practitioners, private hospital pharmacists, governments, academicians and senior pharmacist were recruited using purposive sampling. Using phenomenological study approach, interviews were conducted, and audio recorded with their consent. Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis with Atlas.ti 8 software and categorised as strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT). RESULTS: A total of 28 respondents were interviewed. There was a mixed perception regarding the price transparency implementation in Malaysia's private healthcare settings. The potential strengths include it will provide price standardization, reduce price manipulation and competition, hence allowing the industry players to focus more on patient-care services. Moreover, the private stakeholders were concerned that the practice may affect stakeholders' business and marketing strategy, reduce profit margin, increase general practitioner's consultation fees and causing impact on geographical discrepancies. The practice was viewed as an opportunity to disseminate the truth price information to consumer and strengthen collaboration between healthcare industries and Ministry of Health although this may become a threat that affect the business survival. CONCLUSION: Price transparency initiatives would benefit the pharmaceutical industries, consumer and countries, but it needs to be implemented appropriately to prevent price manipulation, market monopoly, and business closure. Future study may want to evaluate the impact of the initiatives on the business in the industry.

The effect of cost-sharing design characteristics on use of health care recommended by the treating physician; a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Cost-sharing programs are often too complex to be easily understood by the average insured individual. Consequently, it is often difficult to determine the amount of expenses in advance. This may preclude well-informed decisions of insured individuals to adhere to medical treatment advised by the treating physician. Preliminary research has showed that the uncertainty in these cost-sharing payments are affected by four design characteristics, i.e. 1) type of payments (copayments, coinsurances or deductibles), 2) rate of payments, 3) annual caps on cost-sharing and 4) moment that these payments must be made (directly at point of care or billed afterwards by the insurer). METHODS: An online discrete choice experiment was used to assess the extent to which design characteristics of cost-sharing programs affect the decision of individuals to adhere to recommended care (prescribed medications, ordered diagnostic tests and referrals to medical specialist care). Analyses were performed using mixed multinomial logits. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 7921 members of a patient organization. Analyses showed that 1) cost-sharing programs that offer clear information in advance on actual expenses that are billed afterwards, stimulate adherence to care recommended by the treating physician; 2) the relative importance of the design characteristics differed between respondents who reported to have forgone health care due to cost-sharing and those who did not; 3) price-awareness among respondents was limited; 4) the utility derived from attributes and respondents' characteristics were positively correlated; 5) an optimized cost-sharing program revealed an adherence of more than 72.9% among those who reported to have forgone health care. CONCLUSIONS: The analyses revealed that less complex cost-sharing programs stimulate adherence to recommended care. If these programs are redesigned accordingly, individuals who had reported to have forgone a health service recommended by their treating physician due to cost-sharing, would be more likely to use this service. Such redesigned programs provide a policy option to reduce adverse health effects of cost-sharing in these groups. Considering the upcoming shift from volume-based to value-based health care provision, insights into the characteristics of a cost-sharing program that stimulates the use of recommended care may help to design value-based insurance plans.

Price Transparency in Primary Care: Can Patients Learn About Costs When Scheduling an Appointment?

BACKGROUND: Cost-sharing in health insurance plans creates incentives for patients to shop for lower prices, but it is unknown what price information patients can obtain when scheduling office visits. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether new patients can obtain price information for a primary care visit and identify variation across insurance types, offices, and geographic areas. DESIGN: Simulated patient methodology in which trained interviewers posed as non-elderly adults seeking new patient primary care appointments. Caller insurance type (employer-sponsored insurance [ESI], Marketplace, or uninsured) and plan were experimentally manipulated. Callers who were offered a visit asked for price information. Unadjusted means and regression-adjusted differences by insurance, office types, and geography were calculated. PARTICIPANTS: Calls to a representative sample of primary care offices in ten states in 2014: Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas (N = 7865). MAIN MEASURES: Callers recorded whether they were able to obtain a price. If not, they recorded whether they were referred to other sources for price information. KEY RESULTS: Overall, 61.8% of callers with ESI were able to obtain a price, versus 89.2% of uninsured and 47.3% of Marketplace callers (P < 0.001 for differences). Price information was also more readily available in small offices and in counties with high uninsured rates. Among callers not receiving a price, 72.1% of callers with ESI were referred to other sources (billing office or insurance company), versus 25.8% of uninsured and 50.9% of Marketplace callers (P < 0.001). A small fraction of insured callers were told their visit would be free. If not free, mean visit prices ranged from $157 for uninsured to $165 for ESI (P < 0.05). Prices were significantly lower at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), smaller offices, and in counties with high uninsured and low-income rates. CONCLUSIONS: Price information is often unavailable for privately insured patients seeking primary care visits at the time a visit is scheduled.