Search

Private negotiated facility fees at hospitals are on average double the ambulatory surgery center facility fees for common outpatient procedures.

Objective: Little is known about pricing for reconstructive procedures of the head and neck. As of January 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services requires hospitals to disclose payer-negotiated prices for services, offering new insight into prices for privately insured patients., Study Design: Cross-sectional analysis., Setting: Turquoise database., Methods: Payer-negotiated facility fees for 41 reconstructive surgeries were grouped by procedure type: primary closure, skin grafts, tissue rearrangement, locoregional flaps, or free flaps. Prices were normalized to account for local labor costs, then calculated as percent markup in excess of Medicare reimbursement. The mean percent markup between procedure groups was compared by the Kruskal-Wallis test. Subset analyses were performed to compare mean percent markup using a Student's t test. We also assessed price variation by calculating the ratio of 90th/10th percentile mean prices both across and within hospitals., Results: In total, 1324 hospitals (85% urban, 81% nonprofit, 49% teaching) were included. Median payer-negotiated fees showed an increasing trend with more complex procedures, ranging from $379.54 (interquartile range [IQR], $230.87-$656.96) for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 12001 ("simple repair of superficial wounds ≤2.5 cm") to $5422.60 ($3983.55-$8169.41) for CPT code 20969 ("free osteocutaneous flap with microvascular anastomosis"). Median percent markup was highest for primary closure procedures (576.17% [IQR, 326.28%-1089.34%]) and lowest for free flaps (99.56% [37.86%-194.02%]). Higher mean percent markups were observed for rural, for-profit, non-Northeast, nonteaching, and smaller hospitals., Conclusion: Wide variation in private payer-negotiated facility fees exists for head/neck reconstruction surgeries. Further research is necessary to better understand how pricing variation may correlate with out-of-pocket costs and quality of care., (© 2023 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation.)

Access to cochlear implantation can be restricted by financial burden, and little is known about the extent to which cochlear implant (CI) devices prices may vary between hospitals or manufacturers. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of private payer-negotiated prices for CI devices. In total, 161 hospitals were analyzed. Prices varied widely across hospitals and between payers. Despite clinical equipoise between manufacturers with regards to CI user outcomes, significant differences in prices were identified, with higher prices for MED-EL ($38,478 ± 2633) than for Cochlear Ltd. ($34,150 ± 2418, p < .001). Markup analysis for Cochlear Ltd. devices revealed a mean 58.5% ± 7.4% markup in excess of the company's average sales price ($24,649). Negotiated prices were also at least $5000 lower when all 3 brands were offered at the same center (p < .05). Further research examining the influence of patient outcomes and hospital volume on prices are needed., (© 2023 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation.)

Objectives: Hospital prices vary substantially for myringotomy with tympanostomy tube placement (M&T) and adenotonsillectomy (T&A). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently implemented hospital price transparency requirements to help families make financially informed decisions about where to seek care. We sought to determine price availability and the extent of price variation for these procedures., Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the Turquoise Health Hospital Rates Data Platform, which extracts prices for facility fees from publicly available hospital chargemasters. We determined the proportion of hospitals serving pediatric patients that published payer-specific prices for M&T and T&A. We additionally characterized the extent of variation in payer-specific prices both across and within hospitals., Results: Approximately 40% (n = 909 of 2,266 hospitals) serving pediatric patients disclosed prices for M&T or T&A. Among disclosing hospitals, across-center ratios (adjusted for Medicare hospital wage indices) ranged from 11.0 (M&T; 10th percentile adjusted median price: $536.80 versus 90th percentile adjusted median price: $5,929.93) to 23.4 (revision adenoidectomy age >12 years; 10th percentile: $393.82 versus 90th percentile: $9,209.88). Median within-center price ratios for procedures ranged from 2.2 to 2.7, indicating that some private payers reimbursed the same hospital more than twice as much as other payers for the same procedure., Conclusion: The majority of hospitals serving pediatric patients were non-compliant with federal requirements to disclose prices for M&T and T&A. Among disclosing hospitals, there was wide variation in payer-specific prices between and within institutions. Further research is necessary to understand whether disclosure of prices will enable families to make more financially informed decisions., Level of Evidence: 3 Laryngoscope, 133:948-955, 2023., (© 2022 The Authors. The Laryngoscope published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)

Health care costs can present a significant strain on patients with head and neck cancer. It remains unclear how much prices may vary among hospitals providing care and what factors lead to differences in prices of surgical procedures. A cross-sectional analysis of private payer-negotiated prices was performed for 10 commonly performed head and neck surgical oncology procedures. In total, 896 hospitals disclosed prices for at least 1 common head and neck surgical oncology procedure. Wide variation in negotiated surgical prices was identified. Across-center ratios ranged from 6.2 (partial glossectomy without primary closure) to 22.8 (excision of tongue lesion without closure). For-profit hospital ownership structure and geographic region outside of the northeast United States were associated with increased prices. For example, private payer-negotiated prices for direct laryngoscopy with biopsy were on average $2083 greater at for-profit hospitals when compared with nonprofit hospitals ($5215 vs $3132, P < .001). Further research comparing prices and outcomes is needed., (© 2022 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation.)

Objectives: The significant and rising cost of prescription drugs is a pressing concern for patients and payers. However, little is known about spending on and utilization of drugs prescribed by otolaryngologists., Methods: Utilizing publicly available Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use data, we conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 34 small-molecule drugs commonly prescribed by otolaryngologists (defined as 2017 Medicare Part D spending ≥$500 000) to Medicare beneficiaries. Prescription data was characterized by drug type (brand name vs generic). Primary outcomes for each prescription drug included the total annual cost and the total annual number of days supplied., Results: From 2013 to 2017, spending on drugs prescribed by otolaryngologists to Medicare beneficiaries decreased by $32.1 million ($131.7-$99.5 million; relative decrease 24.4%; compound annual growth rate [CAGR] -5.4%), while total utilization increased by 24.9 million days supplied (74.6-99.5 million; relative increase 33.3%; CAGR 5.9%). For brand name drugs, there was a decrease in spending ($71.1-$26.7 million; relative decrease -62.4%; CAGR -17.8%) and utilization (11.2-3.1 million days supplied; relative decrease -72.5%; CAGR -22.8%). In contrast, generic drugs demonstrated increased spending ($60.6-$72.8 million; relative increase 20.2%; CAGR 3.7%) and utilization (63.5-96.4 million days supplied; relative increase 51.9%; CAGR 8.7%)., Conclusions: Spending on drugs prescribed by otolaryngologists to Medicare Part D beneficiaries declined between 2013 and 2017 in part due to a transition from brand name drugs to lower-cost generic equivalents.

In January 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services began requiring hospitals to publish price transparency files listing all prices negotiated with payers. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of payer-negotiated prices for commonly performed outpatient otolaryngology surgery at all hospitals scored by the US News & World Report in otolaryngology. We compared prices among hospitals (across-center ratios) and among payers at the same hospital (within-center ratios). Price disclosure rates were low overall for otolaryngologic surgery (maximum, 26.7% for bronchoscopy). Across-center ratios ranged from 3.5 (adjacent tissue transfer/rearrangement <10 cm 2 ; raw median price range, $1384-$7047) to 18.6 (cochlear implant placement; raw median price range, $2417-$60,255). Median within-center ratios ranged between 2.7 (intraoperative navigation) and 5.4 (total thyroidectomy). Although price variation may signal opportunities for cost savings, patients may have limited ability to comparison shop due to hospital nondisclosure. Further investigation is necessary to examine the factors affecting price variation for otolaryngologic procedures.

Importance: The federal Hospital Price Transparency final rule, which became effective in 2021, requires hospitals to publicly disclose payer-specific prices for drugs. However, little is known about hospital markup prices for parenterally administered therapies., Objective: To assess the extent of price markup by hospitals on parenterally administered cancer therapies and price variation among hospitals and between payers at each hospital., Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted of private payer-specific negotiated prices for the top 25 parenteral (eg, injectable or infusible) cancer therapies by Medicare Part B spending in 2019 using publicly available hospital price transparency files. Sixty-one National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers providing clinical care to adults with cancer were included. The study was conducted from April 1 to October 15, 2021., Exposures: Estimated hospital acquisition costs for each cancer therapy using participation data from the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was hospital price markup for each cancer therapy in excess of estimated acquisition costs. Secondary outcomes were the extent of across-center price ratios, defined as the ratio between the 90th percentile and 10th percentile median prices across centers, and within-center price ratios, defined as the ratio between the 90th percentile and 10th percentile prices between payers at each center., Results: Of 61 NCI-designated cancer centers, 27 (44.3%) disclosed private payer-specific prices for at least 1 top-selling cancer therapy as required by federal regulations. Median drug price markups across all centers and payers ranged between 118.4% (sipuleucel-T) and 633.6% (leuprolide). Across-center price ratios ranged between 2.2 (pertuzumab) and 15.8 (leuprolide). Negotiated prices also varied considerably between payers at the same center; median within-center price ratios for cancer therapies ranged from 1.8 (brentuximab) to 2.5 (bevacizumab)., Conclusions and Relevance: Most NCI-designated cancer centers did not publicly disclose payer-specific prices for cancer therapies as required by federal regulation. The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that, to reduce the financial burden of cancer treatment for patients, institution of public policies to discourage or prevent excessive hospital price markups on parenteral chemotherapeutics might be beneficial.

In 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services transitioned clinicians to the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), the largest mandatory pay-for-performance program in health care history. The first full MIPS program year was 2018, during which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services raised participation requirements and performance thresholds. Using publicly available Medicare data, we conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of otolaryngologist participation and performance in the MIPS in 2017 and 2018. In 2018, otolaryngologists reporting as individuals were less likely ( P < .001) to earn positive payment adjustments (n = 1076/1584, 67.9%) than those participating as groups (n = 2802/2804, 99.9%) or in alternative payment models (n = 1705/1705, 100.0%). Approximately one-third (n = 1286/4472, 28.8%) of otolaryngologists changed reporting affiliations between 2017 and 2018. Otolaryngologists who transitioned from reporting as individuals to participating in alternative payment models (n = 137, 3.1%) achieved the greatest performance score improvements (median change, +23.4 points; interquartile range, 12.0-65.5). These findings have important implications for solo and independent otolaryngology practices in the era of value-based care.

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented financial strain on otolaryngologists. Otolaryngologists employed by small practices may be particularly vulnerable to the effects of ongoing losses because these organizations often have limited financial reserves. We performed a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of federal direct aid provided to small practices (defined as ≤15 clinicians) employing otolaryngologists, using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician Compare National Downloadable File and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Provider Relief Fund database. As of June 18, 2020, the HHS had allocated nearly $80 million to 966 (88.9%) of 1087 small practices employing 2455 otolaryngologists. The median amount of aid per clinician was $7909 (interquartile range, $4409-$12,710). These findings suggest that the majority of small practices have received direct aid through the HHS Provider Relief Fund, but aid amounts have thus far been modest relative to the fixed costs of practice.

A recent investigation by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) suggests that physicians provide fewer postoperative visits (POVs) than expected for procedures with 10- and 90-day global periods. CMS is now contemplating revaluation of these procedures, which could result in lower Medicare payments to otolaryngologists. To estimate the impact of such reform on otolaryngologic procedures, we conducted a secondary subgroup analysis of CMS-contracted research, which used claims-based estimates of POVs to revalue procedures with 10- and 90-day global periods. Among the top 10 highest volume procedures performed in 2018, the proportion of median physician-reported to CMS-expected POVs ranged between 0.0% (myringotomy ± ventilation tube insertion, mouth biopsy, and complex wound repair) and 40.0% (total thyroidectomy). The top 5 procedures accounted for nearly three-quarters ($6.2 million and $8.6 million; 72.6%) of the estimated Medicare payment reduction. Further study is necessary to guide the development of equitable and effective payment reform.

Importance: Clinicians are increasingly adopting telemedicine in an effort to expand patient access and efficiently deliver care. However, the extent to which otolaryngologists provide telemedicine services is unclear., Objective: To characterize recent trends in the use of telemedicine by otolaryngologists to deliver care to Medicare beneficiaries., Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis was conducted between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2018, using publicly available Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary data on physicians practicing in the field of otolaryngology and benchmark specialties (dermatology and psychiatry) that provided telemedicine services to Medicare beneficiaries., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were the mean annual number of telemedicine services delivered per active physician and mean annual payment per active physician for these services. Secondary outcomes included the number, setting, and complexity of telemedicine services., Results: Between 2010 and 2018, otolaryngologists provided 2127 total telemedicine services (7 unique service types) to Medicare beneficiaries and received $88 574 in total payment for these services. During this period, the mean number of telemedicine services increased at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 11.0%, and the mean Medicare payment per otolaryngologist increased at a CAGR of 21.8%. In comparison, telemedicine use during this period generally increased at a higher rate in the fields of dermatology (mean number of services per active physician at CAGR of 13.0%; mean Medicare payment per active physician at CAGR of 12.5%) and psychiatry (mean number of services per active physician at CAGR of 25.8%; mean Medicare payment per active physician at CAGR of 26.6%). In 2018, outpatient evaluation and management visits accounted for most telemedicine services provided (337 of 353 [95.5%]) and the payments received ($17 542.13 of $18 470.47 [95.0%]) by otolaryngologists. In contrast, physicians in other specialties also provided substantial portions of telemedicine services in the inpatient (psychiatry, 18 403 of 198 478 [9.3%]; dermatology, 231 of 1034 [22.3%]) and skilled nursing facility settings (psychiatry, 14 690 of 198 478 [7.4%]; dermatology, 46 of 1034 [4.4%])., Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that the extent to which otolaryngologists used telemedicine to deliver care to Medicare beneficiaries between 2010 and 2018 was rare. Although there was relative growth in the use of telemedicine by otolaryngologists during this period, absolute growth remained low. Policy makers and provider organizations should support otolaryngologists in the adoption of telemedicine technologies, especially while coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) viral suppression efforts necessitate prolonged restriction of physical clinic throughput.

Importance: The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) for Medicare is the largest pay-for-performance program in the history of health care. Although the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) launched the MIPS in 2017, the participation and performance of otolaryngologists in this program remain unclear., Objective: To characterize otolaryngologist participation and performance in the MIPS in 2017., Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of otolaryngologist participation and performance in the MIPS from January 1 through December 31, 2017, using the publicly available CMS Physician Compare 2017 eligible clinician public reporting database., Main Outcomes and Measures: The number and proportion of active otolaryngologists who participated in the MIPS in 2017 were determined. Overall 2017 MIPS payment adjustments received by participants were determined and stratified by reporting affiliation (individual, group, or alternative payment model [APM]). Payment adjustments were categorized based on overall MIPS performance scores in accordance with CMS methodology: penalty (<3 points), no payment adjustment (3 points), positive adjustment (between 3 and 70 points), or bonus for exceptional performance (≥70 points)., Results: In 2017, CMS required 6512 of 9526 (68.4%) of active otolaryngologists to participate in the MIPS. Among these otolaryngologists, 5840 (89.7%) participated; 672 (10.3%) abstained and thus incurred penalties (-4% payment adjustment). The 6512 participating otolaryngologists reported MIPS data as individuals (1990 [30.6%]), as groups (3033 [46.6%]), and through CMS-designated APMs (964 [14.8%]). The majority (4470 of 5840 [76.5%]) received bonuses (maximum payment adjustment, +1.9%) for exceptional performance, while a minority received only a positive payment adjustment (1006 of 5840 [17.2%]) or did not receive an adjustment (364 of 5840 [6.2%]). Whereas nearly all otolaryngologists reporting data via APMs (936 of 964 [97.1%]) earned bonuses for exceptional performance, fewer than 70% of otolaryngologists reporting data as individuals (1124 of 1990 [56.5%]) or groups (2050 of 3033 [67.6%]) earned such bonuses. Of note, nearly all otolaryngologists incurring penalties (658 of 672 [97.9%]) were affiliated with groups., Conclusions and Relevance: Most otolaryngologists participating in the 2017 MIPS received performance bonuses, although variation exists within the field. As CMS continues to reform the MIPS and raise performance thresholds, otolaryngologists should consider adopting measures to succeed in the era of value-based care.

Background: As healthcare costs rise, home health care represents an opportunity to reduce preventable adverse events and costs following hospital discharge. No studies have investigated the utility of home health care within the context of a large and diverse patient population., Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted between 1/1/2013 and 6/30/2015 at a single tertiary care institution to assess healthcare utilization after discharge with home health care. Control patients discharged with "self-care" were matched by propensity score to home health care patients. The primary outcome was total healthcare costs in the 365-day post-discharge period. Secondary outcomes included follow-up readmission and death. Multivariable linear and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to adjust for covariates., Results: Among 64,541 total patients, 11,266 controls were matched to 6,363 home health care patients across 11 disease-based Institutes. During the 365-day post-discharge period, home health care was associated with a mean unadjusted savings of $15,233 per patient, or $6,433 after adjusting for covariates (p < 0.0001). Home health care independently decreased the hazard of follow-up readmission (HR 0.82, p < 0.0001) and death (HR 0.80, p < 0.0001). Subgroup analyses revealed that home health care most benefited patients discharged from the Digestive Disease (death HR 0.72, p < 0.01), Heart & Vascular (adjusted savings of $11,453, p < 0.0001), Medicine (readmission HR 0.71, p < 0.0001), and Neurological (readmission HR 0.67, p < 0.0001) Institutes., Conclusions: Discharge with home health care was associated with significant reduction in healthcare utilization and decreased hazard of readmission and death. These data inform development of value-based care plans., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)