Search

Analyzes 2003-07 trends in unmet prescription drug needs among Americans under age 65 by insurance status and type of coverage, income level, and the presence of chronic conditions. Explores implications of the economic downturn and changes to Medicaid.

Analyzes 2003-07 trends in unmet prescription drug needs among Americans under age 65 by insurance status and type of coverage, income level, and the presence of chronic conditions. Explores implications of the economic downturn and changes to Medicaid.

When including all care related to a hospitalization—for example, a knee or hip replacement—the price of the initial inpatient stay explains almost all of the wide variation from hospital to hospital in spending on so-called episodes of care, according to a study by researchers at the former Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) based on 2011 claims data for 590,000 active and retired nonelderly autoworkers and dependents. For example, average spending for uncomplicated inpatient knee and hip replacements ranged across 36 hospitals from less than $17,500 to $37,000 for an episode of care that included all services during the inpatient stay and all follow-up care within 30 days of discharge. The pattern of spending variation for knee and hip replacements held true for other conditions, with hospital inpatient price differences accounting for the vast majority of spending variation rather than differences in spending on physician and other non-hospital services during and after discharge or spending on readmissions. Moreover, hospitals' case-mix-adjusted relative spending per episode for different service lines—for example, orthopedics and cardiology—tend to be highly correlated with each other. Understanding why spending for episodes of care varies so much among hospitals can help private purchasers accurately target ways to control spending. This study's findings—inpatient prices drive the bulk of episode-spending variation and hospitals with high spending for one service line tend to have high spending for other service lines—indicate that private purchasers can focus on hospitals' overall inpatient price levels rather than pursue bundled payments for episodes of care or service-line-specific purchasing strategies.

Healthcare price transparency discussions typically focus on increasing patients' access to information about their out-of-pocket costs, but that focus is too narrow and should include other audiences -- physicians, employers, health plans and policymakers -- each with distinct needs and uses for healthcare price information. Greater price transparency can reduce U.S. healthcare spending.For example, an estimated $100 billion could be saved over the next 10 years if three select interventions were undertaken. However, most of the projected savings come from making price information available to employers and physicians, according to an analysis by researchers at the former Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). Based on the current availability and modest impact of plan-based transparency tools, requiring all private plans to provide personalized out-of-pocket price data to enrollees would reduce total health spending by an estimated $18 billion over the next decade. While $18 billion is a substantial dollar amount, it is less than a tenth of a percent of the $40 trillionin total projected health spending over the same period. In contrast, using state all-payer claims databases to gather and report hospital-specific prices might reduce spending by an estimated $61 billion over 10 years.The effects of price transparency depend critically on the intended audience, the decision-making context and how prices are presented. And the impact of price transparency can be greatly amplified if target audiences are able and motivated to act on the information. Simply providing prices is insufficient to control spending without other shifts in healthcare financing, including changes in benefit design to make patients more sensitive to price differences among providers and alternative treatments. Other reforms that can amplify the impact of price transparency include shifting from fee-for-service payments that reward providers for volume to payment methods that put provi

Healthcare price transparency discussions typically focus on increasing patients' access to information about their out-of-pocket costs, but that focus is too narrow and should include other audiences -- physicians, employers, health plans and policymakers -- each with distinct needs and uses for healthcare price information. Greater price transparency can reduce U.S. healthcare spending.For example, an estimated $100 billion could be saved over the next 10 years if three select interventions were undertaken. However, most of the projected savings come from making price information available to employers and physicians, according to an analysis by researchers at the former Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). Based on the current availability and modest impact of plan-based transparency tools, requiring all private plans to provide personalized out-of-pocket price data to enrollees would reduce total health spending by an estimated $18 billion over the next decade. While $18 billion is a substantial dollar amount, it is less than a tenth of a percent of the $40 trillionin total projected health spending over the same period. In contrast, using state all-payer claims databases to gather and report hospital-specific prices might reduce spending by an estimated $61 billion over 10 years.The effects of price transparency depend critically on the intended audience, the decision-making context and how prices are presented. And the impact of price transparency can be greatly amplified if target audiences are able and motivated to act on the information. Simply providing prices is insufficient to control spending without other shifts in healthcare financing, including changes in benefit design to make patients more sensitive to price differences among providers and alternative treatments. Other reforms that can amplify the impact of price transparency include shifting from fee-for-service payments that reward providers for volume to payment methods that put provi

Healthcare price transparency discussions typically focus on increasing patients' access to information about their out-of-pocket costs, but that focus is too narrow and should include other audiences -- physicians, employers, health plans and policymakers -- each with distinct needs and uses for healthcare price information. Greater price transparency can reduce U.S. healthcare spending.For example, an estimated $100 billion could be saved over the next 10 years if three select interventions were undertaken. However, most of the projected savings come from making price information available to employers and physicians, according to an analysis by researchers at the former Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). Based on the current availability and modest impact of plan-based transparency tools, requiring all private plans to provide personalized out-of-pocket price data to enrollees would reduce total health spending by an estimated $18 billion over the next decade. While $18 billion is a substantial dollar amount, it is less than a tenth of a percent of the $40 trillionin total projected health spending over the same period. In contrast, using state all-payer claims databases to gather and report hospital-specific prices might reduce spending by an estimated $61 billion over 10 years.The effects of price transparency depend critically on the intended audience, the decision-making context and how prices are presented. And the impact of price transparency can be greatly amplified if target audiences are able and motivated to act on the information. Simply providing prices is insufficient to control spending without other shifts in healthcare financing, including changes in benefit design to make patients more sensitive to price differences among providers and alternative treatments. Other reforms that can amplify the impact of price transparency include shifting from fee-for-service payments that reward providers for volume to payment methods that put provi

When including all care related to a hospitalization—for example, a knee or hip replacement—the price of the initial inpatient stay explains almost all of the wide variation from hospital to hospital in spending on so-called episodes of care, according to a study by researchers at the former Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC) based on 2011 claims data for 590,000 active and retired nonelderly autoworkers and dependents. For example, average spending for uncomplicated inpatient knee and hip replacements ranged across 36 hospitals from less than $17,500 to $37,000 for an episode of care that included all services during the inpatient stay and all follow-up care within 30 days of discharge. The pattern of spending variation for knee and hip replacements held true for other conditions, with hospital inpatient price differences accounting for the vast majority of spending variation rather than differences in spending on physician and other non-hospital services during and after discharge or spending on readmissions. Moreover, hospitals' case-mix-adjusted relative spending per episode for different service lines—for example, orthopedics and cardiology—tend to be highly correlated with each other. Understanding why spending for episodes of care varies so much among hospitals can help private purchasers accurately target ways to control spending. This study's findings—inpatient prices drive the bulk of episode-spending variation and hospitals with high spending for one service line tend to have high spending for other service lines—indicate that private purchasers can focus on hospitals' overall inpatient price levels rather than pursue bundled payments for episodes of care or service-line-specific purchasing strategies.

Healthcare price transparency discussions typically focus on increasing patients' access to information about their out-of-pocket costs, but that focus is too narrow and should include other audiences -- physicians, employers, health plans and policymakers -- each with distinct needs and uses for healthcare price information. Greater price transparency can reduce U.S. healthcare spending.For example, an estimated $100 billion could be saved over the next 10 years if three select interventions were undertaken. However, most of the projected savings come from making price information available to employers and physicians, according to an analysis by researchers at the former Center for Studying Health System Change (HSC). Based on the current availability and modest impact of plan-based transparency tools, requiring all private plans to provide personalized out-of-pocket price data to enrollees would reduce total health spending by an estimated $18 billion over the next decade. While $18 billion is a substantial dollar amount, it is less than a tenth of a percent of the $40 trillionin total projected health spending over the same period. In contrast, using state all-payer claims databases to gather and report hospital-specific prices might reduce spending by an estimated $61 billion over 10 years.The effects of price transparency depend critically on the intended audience, the decision-making context and how prices are presented. And the impact of price transparency can be greatly amplified if target audiences are able and motivated to act on the information. Simply providing prices is insufficient to control spending without other shifts in healthcare financing, including changes in benefit design to make patients more sensitive to price differences among providers and alternative treatments. Other reforms that can amplify the impact of price transparency include shifting from fee-for-service payments that reward providers for volume to payment methods that put provi

Estimates how a permanent 10 percent increase in Medicare fees for primary care ambulatory visits would affect the number and cost of visits and spending for inpatient and post-acute care. Considers primary care's role in bending the Medicare cost curve.

Estimates how a permanent 10 percent increase in Medicare fees for primary care ambulatory visits would affect the number and cost of visits and spending for inpatient and post-acute care. Considers primary care's role in bending the Medicare cost curve.

Estimates how a permanent 10 percent increase in Medicare fees for primary care ambulatory visits would affect the number and cost of visits and spending for inpatient and post-acute care. Considers primary care's role in bending the Medicare cost curve.

Documents limited adoption of recommended practices for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in health care, including interpreter services, training in minority health, and quality of care reports for minority patients. Considers policy implications.

Documents limited adoption of recommended practices for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in health care, including interpreter services, training in minority health, and quality of care reports for minority patients. Considers policy implications.

Documents limited adoption of recommended practices for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in health care, including interpreter services, training in minority health, and quality of care reports for minority patients. Considers policy implications.

Documents limited adoption of recommended practices for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in health care, including interpreter services, training in minority health, and quality of care reports for minority patients. Considers policy implications.

Highlights findings on the factors that drive short-term changes in employer-sponsored health insurance coverage, including the rising cost of health insurance and changes in employment rates and availability of better jobs during macroeconomic cycles.

Highlights findings on the factors that drive short-term changes in employer-sponsored health insurance coverage, including the rising cost of health insurance and changes in employment rates and availability of better jobs during macroeconomic cycles.

Highlights findings on the factors that drive short-term changes in employer-sponsored health insurance coverage, including the rising cost of health insurance and changes in employment rates and availability of better jobs during macroeconomic cycles.