Site-neutral payment is a policy created by federal rule making and implemented by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that aims to reduce healthcare costs by aligning payment rates for certain services provided in multiple care settings. Site-neutral payments are intended to eliminate the incentive for providers to acquire facilities, such as physician offices or ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), that Medicare reimburses at the lower non-facility rate and convert those settings into hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs), where Medicare reimburses at the higher facility rate. Although initiated by Congress to address payment disparities in Medicare, similar payment discrepancies can be seen in the commercial market where individual and employer-sponsored health plans often pay more for certain outpatient services depending on their location. This analysis presents a simulation of the impact of applying site-neutral payments to the commercial market with respect to overall potential savings for consumers, health plans and the federal government. To conduct the analysis, we use an all-payer claims data base generalizable to the United States. The analysis focused on a select group of outpatient services identified by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). We mapped the MedPAC identified 68 Ambulatory Payment Classifications (APCs), the codes Medicare uses to reimburse facilities for outpatient services, to the relevant CPT4/HCPCS codes, which the commercial market uses for billing. The potential cost savings of applying the site-neutral payment policy to the commercial insurance market to be $58 billion for year 2022. We estimate the 10-year total (2024-2033) employer market premium reduction ranges from 5.35% to 5.0% and found that those premium reductions would result in employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) tax subsidy savings of $140 billion to the federal government over a 10-year period (2024-2033).

Objectives: Widespread use of electronic health records (EHRs) now makes it feasible to expand beyond health insurance claims data to include full EHR data for health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) studies. We seek to develop ways to maximize researcher access to such data while strongly protecting patients' privacy rights. Methods: We analyzed alternative organizational structures and intellectual property rights assignments as they now exist and compared these with structures and intellectual property rights assignments that would maximize access to data for HEOR studies and minimize transactions costs. We analyzed data protection requirements and financial incentives at 3 levels: patient decision making, patients' data aggregators, and final aggregation across patients' data. Results: Creating new HEOR data systems requires new organizations and funding, while also protecting patients' data privacy rights. The Cures Act enables a new market for trusted third parties (TTPs) to aggregate patients' data. New secondary data aggregators must combine individuals' aggregated EHRs into usable HEOR databases. Maximal patient participation requires complete health insurance coverage of costs that healthcare providers charge for transmitting patients' data to TTPs. The new secondary system to aggregate data from many TTPs into usable HEOR optimally has external funding. Conclusions: Important steps remain uncompleted to achieve maximally available HEOR data while protecting patients' privacy rights. HEOR information is a public good, so private incentives to support creation and operation of this new system remain incomplete. Public and private support can expand this system to optimally improve people's health.

This analysis investigates and scores the impact of new health price transparency rules. Using a set of novel data sources, we estimate substantial savings are possible following the implementation of the insurer price transparency rule. Specifically, we estimate annual savings to consumers, employers, and insurers by 2025, assuming a robust set of tools to allow consumers to purchase medical services. We matched claims with 70 HHS defined shoppable services by CPT and DRG codes and replaced them with an estimated median commercial allowed payment multiplied by a reduced cost of 40% based on estimates found from literature for the difference in cost between negotiated and cash payment for medical services. We consider 40% to be an upper bound estimate of the potential savings based on existing literature. Several databases are used to estimate the potential benefits of insurer price transparency. Two different all-payer claim databases were used, representing the entire insured population in the US. For this analysis, only the private insurer commercial population was examined, comprised of over 200 million covered lives as of 2021. The estimated impact of price transparency will vary significantly by region and income level. The national upper bound estimate is $80.7 billion. The national lower bound estimate is $17.6 billion. For the upper bound, the region with the most significant impact in the US will be the Midwest, with $20 billion in potential savings and an 8% reduction in medical expenditure. The region with the lowest impact will be the South, with only a 5.8% reduction. Concerning income, those at lower levels of income will have the most significant impact with a −7.4% (<100% Federal Poverty Level) to −7.5% (100%-137% Federal Poverty Level) impact. Overall, the total impact could be a 6.9% reduction for the whole privately insured population in the United States. In summary, a unique set of national data resources were used to estimate the cost savings impact medical price transparency. This analysis suggests price transparency for shoppable services may yields significant savings between $17.6 to $80.7 billion by 2025. Consumers may have strong incentives to shop with the rise in the use of high deductibles, health plans, and health savings accounts. How these potential saving are to be shared by consumers, employers and health plans has yet to be determined.

Medical care often includes provider collaboration. However, the behavior of and desire for clinical teams is partly determined by regulations. We explore such issues in the context of anesthesia care whereby physician-trained anesthesiologists and certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) perform overlapping services but commonly engage in joint production.Leveraging a Medicare-driven removal of physician supervision requirements for CRNAs, we find only modest reductions in billing for collaborative operating room work. There is a 20-25% increase in claims for CRNA hospital services delivered outside of the operating room–– suggesting improved productive capacity––but this is relative to a low baseline.

This cross-sectional study uses US Health Resources and Services Administration data to assess the distribution of claims reimbursement funds to health care professionals and facilities for uninsured patients with COVID-19.

We use a novel data set from a private online marketplace to estimate the demand for individual health insurance among a set comprising many high-income households across 18 states. Households earning more than four times the federal poverty level (FPL) are willing to pay $30 to $135 per month to increase the actuarial value of their insurance by 10 percentage points, much less than households earning less than 2.5 times FPL. Higher-income households are also less likely to forgo insurance because of a premium increase. These results are important for understanding the effect of health reform proposals targeting higher-income populations.

Medicare is a roughly $700 billion public program, with physician payments representing one of its largest expenditures. Medicare's prices are also administratively set, which leaves the structure of payment changes subject to a political process that may introduce idiosyncratic features and even perverse incentives. At the same time, physician responses to changes in Medicare reimbursements are likely to vary according to the policy's duration, scope, and size. We study a setting where broad federal laws contained specific provisions that financially benefit a narrow group: Alaskan physicians. The geographically targeted payment reforms were also unique along key dimensions. Using difference-in-differences strategies, we find that large, temporary price changes increase spending but elicit no detectable supply response. Conversely, generous and permanent price shocks induce greater service flows but not uniformly across specialties. Our findings suggest that Congress may engage in fiscally inefficient Medicare spending to accomplish other legislative objectives. (c) 2021 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management

As Medicare Advantage increasingly becomes the dominant form of Medicare, meaningful and accurate comparisons with traditional fee-for-service Medicare will be increasingly important for both beneficiaries and policy makers. Recent debate among policy experts, government advisory bodies, and health plans highlights the need to create standardized comparison between the 2 Medicare programs. Supplemental benefits, Part B cost-sharing differences, and prescription drug benefits should be valued with a series of structured comparisons. Making this information transparent to beneficiaries through the plan finder would improve beneficiary decision-making. Finally, pragmatic comparisons would support policy makers in making improvements to Medicare Advantage program policy, undertaking comparative program evaluation, and engaging in Medigap plan oversight.

Background: We tested whether provider quality and cost information had a meaningful impact on health care quality and costs at two large employers that introduced a transparent provider profiling system in 2006. Using retrospective claims from enrollees representing 3,928 covered lives in these two firms where the insurer was the sole provider of health insurance, we addressed two questions: 1) Did patients switch to higher quality and more efficient doctors when the provider rankings became available? 2) What is the effect of switching on total expenditures, out-of-pocket expenditures, and use of preventive services? Methods: We used nonlinear regression to identify factors associated with improvement in quality and cost efficiency of providers seen by covered enrollees. We used difference-in-differences regression to test the impact on expenditures and use of preventive services of those who switched to higher-rated physicians. Results: Age, illness burden, and female are positively associated with improvement in provider quality and efficiency. Provider portfolio improvement had a negative impact on expenditures, but the story with respect to prevention is mixed: preventive visits go up when the patient has an improved provider portfolio, but utilization of diagnostic screening procedures goes down. Conclusions: A common concern in medical markets is the lack of information for consumers to shop for health care. We find consumers exhibit behaviors that suggest they use such information when it is available and useful. These results suggest that consumers could process additional price and quality information to gain more value from their health insurance benefits.

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal

Technological changes in medicine have created new opportunities to provide surgical care in lower cost, specialized facilities. This paper examines patient outcomes in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), which were developed as a low-cost alternative to outpatient surgery in hospitals. Because we are concerned that selection into ASCs may bias estimates of facility quality, we use predicted changes in federally set Medicare facility payment rates as an instrument for ASC utilization to estimate the effect of location of treatment on patient outcomes. We find that patients treated in an ASC are less likely to be admitted to a hospital or visit an emergency room a short time after outpatient surgery. The findings in this paper indicate that factors other than patient and physician heterogeneity contribute to the observed returns to specialization in the ASC market.

Using a national multipayer commercial claims database containing allowed amounts, we examined variations in the prices for 242 common medical services in forty-one states and the District of Columbia. Ratios of average state prices to national prices ranged from a low of 0.79 in Florida to a high of 2.64 in Alaska. Two- to threefold variations in prices were identified within some states and Metropolitan Statistical Areas.

The immune system is a powerful barrier to successful organ transplantation, but one that has been routinely thwarted through modern pharmacotherapeutics. Despite the benefits of immunosuppressive therapy, medication non-adherence leads to an increased risk of graft rejection, higher hospital utilization and costs, and poor outcomes. We conduct a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework methodology to identify established or novel interventions that could be applied to kidney transplant recipients to improve medication adherence. As the desired outcome is a behavior (taking a pill), we assess three areas: behavioral-focused interventions in other industries, patient engagement theories, and behavioral economic principles. Search strategies included mining business, social sciences, and medical literature with additional guidance from six consultative interviews. Our review suggests that no intervention stands out as superior or likely to be more effective than any other intervention; yet promising strategies and interventions were identified across all three areas examined. Based on our findings, we believe there are five strategies that transplant centers and other organizations can implement to improve medication adherence: (1) Build a foundation of trust; (2) Employ multiple interventions; (3) Stratify the population; (4) Develop collaborative partnerships; and (5) Embed medication adherence into the organization's culture. The effectiveness of these interventions will need to be investigated further, but we believe they are a step in the right direction for organizations to consider in their efforts to improve medication adherence.

OBJECTIVE:To predict changes in wage growth for health care workers based on projections of insurance enrollment from the Affordable Care Act (ACA).DATA SOURCES:Enrollment data came from three large employers and a sampling of premiums from ehealthinsurance.com. Information on state Medicaid eligibility rules and costs were from the Kaiser Family Foundation. National predictions were based on the MEPS and Medicare Current Beneficiary surveys. Bureau of Labor Statistics data were used to estimate employment.STUDY DESIGN:We projected health insurance enrollment by plan type using a health plan choice model. Using claims data, we measured the services demanded for each plan choice and year. Projections of labor demand were based on current output/input ratios. Changes in wages resulting from changes in labor demand from 2014 to 2021 were based on labor supply and demand elasticities.PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Expenditures required to retain and grow the health care workforce will increase substantially. Wages will increase most for professions with the greatest training requirements (physicians and registered nurses). The largest impact will be felt in 2015.CONCLUSIONS:Projected wage increases for health care workers may drive substantial growth in insurance premiums and reduce the affordability of health insurance.

AIMS The aim of this study was to answer the overall question: Does primary care diabetes management for Medicare patients differ in scope and outcomes by provider type (physician or nurse practitioner)? BACKGROUND In the USA as well as globally, there is a pressing need to address high healthcare costs while improving healthcare outcomes. Primary health care is one area where healthcare reform has received considerable attention, in part because of continued projections of primary care physician shortages. Many argue that nurse practitioners are one solution to ease the consequences of the projected shortage of primary care physicians in the USA as well as other developed countries. DESIGN Cross-sectional quantitative analysis of 2012 Medicare claims data. METHODS A 5% Standard Analytic File of 2012 Medicare claims data for beneficiaries with Type 2 diabetes were analysed. A medical productivity index was used to stratify patients as healthiest and least healthy who were seen by either nurse practitioners only or primary care physicians exclusively. Included in the analyses were health services utilization, health outcomes and healthcare cost variables. RESULTS The patients in the nurse practitioner only group, overall and stratified by medical productivity index status, had significantly improved outcomes compared with all primary care physician provider groups regarding healthcare services utilization, patient health outcomes and healthcare costs. CONCLUSIONS These findings inform current healthcare workforce conversations regarding healthcare quality, outcomes and costs. Our results suggest nurse practitioner engagement in chronic care patient management in primary care settings is associated with lower cost and better quality health care.

Health information technology (IT) adoption, it is argued, will dramatically improve patient care. We study the impact of hospital IT adoption on patient outcomes focusing on the role of patient and organizational heterogeneity. We link detailed hospital discharge data on all Medicare fee‐for‐service admissions from 2002–2007 to detailed hospital‐level IT adoption information. For all IT‐sensitive conditions, we find that health IT adoption reduces mortality for the most complex patients but does not affect outcomes for the median patient. Benefits from health IT are primarily experienced by patients whose diagnoses require cross‐specialty care coordination and extensive clinical information management.