Search

BACKGROUND The Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule, effective January 1, 2021, requires hospitals to post online a machine-readable file that includes payer-specific negotiated commercial prices for all services. The regulation aims to improve the affordability of hospital care by promoting price competition. However, a low compliance level among hospitals would compromise the operational effectiveness of this regulation. Understanding hospitals’ compliance status to the regulation has important implications for its enforcement effort and effectiveness assessment. OBJECTIVE To analyze nationwide hospitals’ compliance status to the Hospital Price Transparency Rule. DESIGN Cross-sectional observational study. PARTICIPANTS A total of 3558 Medicare-certified general acute-care hospitals were examined. MAIN MEASURES A binary compliance rating was generated by using data collected by Turquoise Health. “Noncompliance” means that no machine-readable file was posted or the posted file contains no commercial negotiated prices. “Compliance” means that a machine-readable file was posted with commercial negotiated prices for at least one insurance plan. KEY RESULTS As of June 1, 2021, 55% of the 3558 Medicare-certified general acute-care hospitals we examined had not posted a machine-readable file containing commercial negotiated prices. Wide variations of compliance existed across states and hospital referral regions. A hospital’s compliance status is strongly associated with the average compliance status of peer hospitals in the same market. Hospitals with greater IT preparedness, for-profit hospitals, system-affiliated hospitals, large hospitals, and non-urban hospitals had greater compliance. More concentrated hospital markets had greater average compliance. CONCLUSIONS Hospitals take into consideration the behavior of their peers in the same market when making price disclosure decisions. Compliant hospitals are likely to have better IT preparedness, more financial resources and personnel expertise to mitigate the cost required for the implementation of the Price Transparency Rule. The compliance cost, therefore, might be a barrier for some hospitals. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-07237-y.

OBJECTIVES Self-insured employers cover more people than Medicare, Medicaid, or direct purchasers of private insurance.This study examined the ability of self-insured employers to negotiate hospital prices and the relationship between hospital prices and employer market power in the United States. STUDY DESIGN Repeated cross-section analysis of commercial claims. METHODS We used the US Census Bureau County Business Patterns data to estimate employer market power at the metropolitan statistical area (MSA)-year level and used the Truven Health MarketScan commercial claims to estimate mean hospital prices and price ratios at the MSA-year level (2010-2016). We calculated descriptive statistics for employer market power, mean hospitalization prices, and a case mix-adjusted price ratio measure during the study period and analyzed the 10 most concentrated labor markets. We estimated MSA-year-level ordinary least squares regressions of hospitalization price and the price ratio measure on employer market power. RESULTS Large self-insured employers had concentrated market power in very few MSAs in 2016. The mean value of our employer market power measure was 62 for 2016, compared with the mean value of 5410 for hospital market power in the United States. Regression analyses find a slight relationship: A 1-point increase in employer market power was associated with a $6.61 decrease in the hospitalization price (mean = $20,813), but this result becomes statistically insignificant once the models control for hospital wages. CONCLUSIONS Employer market power is low in most MSAs. Self-insured employers may consider building purchase alliances with state and local government employee groups to enhance their market power and lower negotiated prices for hospital services.

ImportanceTax-exempt hospitals are required to provide charity care to maintain their tax-exempt status; charity care policies must be published online with clear eligibility criteria. Prior research has shown wide variability in charity care policy content; it is unknown how hospitals change their charity care policies over time.ObjectiveTo examine changes to tax-exempt hospital charity care policies before vs after the COVID-19 pandemic.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study used downloaded charity care policies from a geographically representative sample of 170 tax-exempt hospitals from December 1 to 31, 2019, and December 1 to 31, 2021, and categorized the policy changes made as more restrictive, more generous, indeterminate, minimal, or not updated.ExposuresOnset of the COVID-19 pandemic.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was charity care policy content changes from 2019 to 2021. Also examined were the effects of hospital ownership type, state Medicaid expansion status, and hospital consolidation on policy changes.ResultsIn this sample of 170 hospitals, 151 published documents available for comparison. Among these hospitals, 127 (84.1%) updated their charity care policies and 77 (51.0%) made substantial changes, with 242 distinct policy changes to categories such as income eligibility cutoffs, asset limitations, and service exclusions. Although the majority of hospitals expanded charity care (47 [31.1%]), a sizable minority restricted charity care (12 [7.9%]). Medicaid expansion during the study period and hospital consolidations were not associated with expansion of charity care; the largest merger in this sample led to reduced charity care at all 4 hospitals involved.Conclusions and RelevanceTax-exempt hospitals appear to have updated their policies with mostly positive changes during and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic; however, some hospitals restricted charity care in 2021 documents. Unpublicized or vague eligibility criteria may limit patients’ understanding of charity care policies and conceal the full extent of charity care policy changes over time. Policy makers should consider requiring greater transparency and simplification for hospital charity care policies to ensure adequate access to care for uninsured and underinsured patients.

Hospitals acquire and maintain long-term operating assets such as land, buildings, and equipment. In this study, we analyzed hospitals’ long-term assets acquisitions data extracted from the Medicare Cost Report, a mandatory annual filing for all Medicare-certified hospitals. The first objective of this study is to examine the time trend of land, buildings, and equipment acquisitions of all general acute care hospitals in the U.S. from 2005 to 2019 to understand the relative magnitude and temporal changes for the operating assets. The second objective is to examine the 15-year accumulated acquisitions of land, buildings, and equipment per capita in each state to understand the variations of potential access to hospital operating resources across states. To understand the longitudinal changes in acquisitions of operating assets for each year from 2005 to 2019, we calculated the total acquisition amounts across all hospitals for land, buildings, and equipment, respectively, and adjusted the amounts to 2019 dollars based on the consumer price index (CPI). For each state (including Washington D.C.) and the whole nation, the 15-year accumulated CPI-adjusted acquisition amounts per capita for land, buildings, and equipment were also calculated, respectively. The nationwide acquisitions of those operating assets grew rapidly from 2005 to 2008 followed by a negative overall growth from 2008 to 2014 and since 2015, started increasing steadily again. In 2019, U.S. general acute care hospitals acquired $3.0 billion of land, $44.6 billion of buildings, and $33.9 billion of equipment. Huge geographical variation in per capita cumulative total asset investment were also found with the first place North Dakota having a per capita investment that is almost four times higher than that in the lowest ranked state of Alabama.

ObjectiveThis study aims to characterise and evaluate the largest 100 hospitals in the USA that have adopted aggressive collection tactics to pursue patients with unpaid medical bills, such as lawsuits, wage garnishments and liens.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingWe examined state and county court record systems to measure the magnitude and prevalence of these practices at the largest 100 hospitals in the UA between 1 January 2018 and 31 July 2020.Main outcomes measuresThe main outcome of this study was the number of lawsuits, wage garnishments and liens. A secondary outcome was the characterisation of a hospital’s safety, charitability, size and financial practices.ResultsBetween 1 January 2018 and 31 July 2020, 26 hospitals filed 38 965 court actions (lawsuits, wage garnishments and liens) against patients for unpaid medical debt. For 16 of 26 hospitals, the dollar amount pursued in the court claim was available for 100% of cases, totalling US$71.8 million. The average aggregate amount sought by hospital lawsuits during the study period was US$4.5 million. Three hospitals filed US$56.2 million in amounts pursued in court, or 78.3% of the total amount pursued by all hospitals in the sample. In the remaining 74 hospitals, the study team did not identify extraordinary collection actions through the court system.ConclusionsStandardised medical debt collections best practices and metrics of medical debt collections quality are needed to increase public accountability for hospitals, particularly non-profit hospitals. There is a need to re-evaluate Internal Revenue Service rules pertaining to non-profit hospitals’ tax-exempt status to ensure tax-exempt hospitals provide community benefits commensurate with the value of tax exemption.

To identify the characteristics of the most profitable US hospitals, we examined the profitability of acute care hospitals in fiscal year 2013, measured as net income from patient care services per adjusted discharge. Based on Medicare Cost Reports and Final Rule Data, the median hospital lost $82 for each such discharge. Forty-five percent of hospitals were profitable, with 2.5 percent earning more than $2,475 per adjusted discharge. The ten most profitable hospitals, seven of which were nonprofit, each earned more than $163 million in total profits from patient care services. Hospitals with for-profit status, higher markups, system affiliation, or regional power, as well as those located in states with price regulation, tended to be more profitable than other hospitals. Hospitals that treated a higher proportion of Medicare patients, had higher expenditures per adjusted discharge, were located in counties with a high proportion of uninsured patients, or were located in states with a dominant insurer or greater health maintenance organization (HMO) penetration had lower profitability than hospitals that did not have these characteristics. These findings can inform policy reforms, while providing a baseline against which to measure the impact of any subsequent reforms.