Search

Background: 'Surprise billing', or the phenomenon of unexpected coverage gaps in which patients receiving out-of-network medical bills after what they thought was in-network care, has been a major focus of policymakers and advocacy groups recently, particularly in the Emergency Department (ED) setting, where patients' ability to choose a provider is exceedingly limited. The No Surprises Act is the legislative culmination to address "surprise bills," with the aim of promoting price transparency as a solution for billing irregularities. However, the knowledge and perceptions of patients regarding emergency care price transparency, particularly the degree to which ED patients are cost conscious is unknown. Accordingly, we sought to quantify that perception by measuring patients' direct predictions for the cost of their care., Methods: We conducted an in-person survey of patients in Emergency Departments (EDs) over an 10-month period at two campuses within a large academic hospital system in southern Connecticut. We surveyed a convenience sample of patients at the bedside regarding demographics, care seeking perceptions and their estimates of the total and out-of-pocket costs for their ED care. Survey data was linked to institutional hospital finance datasets including actual charges and payments. We then later obtained the actual costs and billed amounts and compared these to the patients' estimates using a paired t-test. We also analyzed results according to certain patient demographics., Results: A total of 600 patients were approached for survey, and data from 455 were available for the final analysis. On average, patients overestimated the cost of their care by $2484 and overestimated out-of-pocket cost by $144; both of these results met statistical significance (p < .005). Patients were better able to predict both total and out-of-pocket costs if they were: college educated or above; unemployed or retired; aged 65 or older; or had private insurance. Uninsured patients could better predict total cost but not out-of-pocket costs. One in 4 patients reported considering the cost of care prior to visiting the ED. Only 12 patients reported trying to look up that price before coming., Conclusions: This study is the first to our knowledge that sought to quantify how patients perceive the cost of acute, unscheduled care in the ED. We found that ED patients generally do not consider the price before going to the ED, and subsequently overestimate the negotiated total costs of acute, unscheduled emergency care as well as their out-of-pocket responsibility for care. Certain demographics are less predictive of this association. Notably, patients with Medicare/Medicaid and those with high school education or below were of the furthest off in predicting the actual cost of care. This lends credence to the established trend of patients' limited knowledge of the total cost of healthcare; moreover, that they overestimate the cost of their care could serve as a barrier to accessing that care particularly in more vulnerable groups. We hope that this finding adds useful information to policymakers in sculpting future legislation around surprise billing., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: With rapid innovations in diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in cancer care, comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs) are essential to inform clinical practice and guide future research. However, the optimal means to identify priority CER topics are uninvestigated. We aimed to devise a transparent and reproducible process to identify ten to 12 CER topics in the area of cancer imaging relevant to a wide range of stakeholders., Materials & Methods: Environmental scans and explicit prioritization criteria supported interactions (email communications, web-based discussions and live teleconferences) with experts and stakeholders culminating in a three-phase deductive exercise for prioritization of CER topics., Results: We prioritized 12 CER topics in breast, lung and gastrointestinal cancers that addressed screening, diagnosis, staging, monitoring and evaluating response to treatment., Conclusion: Our project developed and implemented a transparent and reproducible process for research prioritization and topic nomination that can be further refined to improve the relevance of future CERs.

Importance: Sensorineural hearing loss is the third leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide. Cochlear implants may provide a viable alternative to hearing aids for this type of hearing loss. The Coverage and Analysis Group at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services was interested in an evaluation of recently published literature on this topic. In addition, this meta-analysis is to our knowledge the first to evaluate quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes in adults with cochlear implants., Objective: To evaluate the communication-related outcomes and health-related QOL outcomes after unilateral or bilateral cochlear implantation in adults with sensorineural hearing loss., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and previous reports from January 1, 2004, through May 31, 2012., Study Selection: Published studies of adult patients undergoing unilateral or bilateral procedures with multichannel cochlear implants and assessments using open-set sentence tests, multisyllable word tests, or QOL measures., Data Extraction: Five researchers extracted information on population characteristics, outcomes of interest, and study design and assessed the studies for risk of bias. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus., Results: A total of 42 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most unilateral implant studies showed a statistically significant improvement in mean speech scores as measured by open-set sentence or multisyllable word tests; meta-analysis revealed a significant improvement in QOL after unilateral implantation. Results from studies assessing bilateral implantation showed improvement in communication-related outcomes compared with unilateral implantation and additional improvements in sound localization compared with unilateral device use or implantation only. Based on a few studies, the QOL outcomes varied across tests after bilateral implantation., Conclusions and Relevance: Unilateral cochlear implants provide improved hearing and significantly improve QOL, and improvements in sound localization are noted for bilateral implantation. Future studies of longer duration, higher-quality reporting, and large databases or registries of patients with long-term follow-up data are needed to yield stronger evidence.

Objective: Apply and compare two methods that identify signals for the need to update systematic reviews, using three Evidence-based Practice Center reports on omega-3 fatty acids as test cases., Study Design and Setting: We applied the RAND method, which uses domain (subject matter) expert guidance, and a modified Ottawa method, which uses quantitative and qualitative signals. For both methods, we conducted focused electronic literature searches of recent studies using the key terms from the original reports. We assessed the agreement between the methods and qualitatively assessed the merits of each system., Results: Agreement between the two methods was "substantial" or better (kappa>0.62) in three of the four systematic reviews. Overall agreement between the methods was "substantial" (kappa=0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.83)., Conclusion: The RAND and modified Ottawa methods appear to provide similar signals for the possible need to update systematic reviews in this pilot study. Future evaluation with a broader range of clinical topics and eventual comparisons between signals to update reports and the results of full evidence review updates will be needed. We propose a hybrid approach combining the best features of both methods, which should allow efficient review and assessment of the need to update., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)