Search

Background The phenomenon of excess charge, where a healthcare service provider bills Medicare beyond the limit allowed for a medical procedure, is quite common in the United States public healthcare system. For example, in 2014, healthcare providers charged an average of 3.27 times (and up to 528 times) the allowable limit for cataract surgery. Previous research contends that such excess charges may be indicative of the actual amount that providers bill to non-Medicare patients and subsequent cost-shifting behavior, where a healthcare provider tries to recoup underpayment by Medicare from privately insured, self-pay, out-of-network, and uninsured patients. Objectives The objective of this study is to examine the drivers of a provider’s excess charge patterns, especially the extent to which the degree of excess charges may be associated with physician characteristics, Medicare reimbursement policy, or socioeconomic status and demographics of a provider’s patient base. Methods Using data from the 2014 Medicare Provider Utilization files, we identify three procedures with the highest variation in Medicare reimbursements to study the excess charge phenomenon. We then employ a two-step cluster analysis within each procedure to identify distinct provider groups. Results Each procedure code yielded distinct healthcare provider segments with specific patient demographics and related behavior patterns. Cluster silhouette coefficients indicate that these segments are unique. Three random subsamples from each procedure establish the stability of the clusters. Conclusions For each of the three procedures investigated in this study, a sizeable number of healthcare providers serving poorer, riskier patients are often paid significantly lower than their peers, and subsequently have the highest excess charges. For some providers, excess charges reveal possible cost-shifting to private insurance. Patterns of excess charges also indicate an imbalance of market power, especially in areas with lower provider competition and access to health care, thus leading to urban-rural healthcare disparities. Our results reinforce the call for price transparency and an upper limit to overbilling.

Big infectious diseases do harm to the whole society, and it is highly crucial to control them on time. The major purpose of this article is to theoretically demonstrate that the Chinese government’s intervention in large-scale infectious diseases is successful and efficient. Two potential strategies were considered: strategy 1 was infectious disease without government intervention, and strategy 2 was infectious disease with government intervention. By evolution model, this article illustrates the efficiency of big infectious disease reimbursement policy in China. Without government reimbursement, this article finds that high expenditures accelerate the disease infection. The number of infected persons decreases under big infectious disease reimbursement policy in China. The higher the treatment costs, the more important the government intervention. Big infectious disease reimbursement policy in China can serve as an efficient example to cope with big infectious diseases.

Objectives:Multi-analyte assays with algorithmic analyses (MAAAs) use combinations of circulating and clinical markers including omics-based sources for diagnostic and/or prognostic purposes. Assessing MAAAs is challenging under existing health technology assessment (HTA) methods or practices. We undertook a scoping review to explore the HTA methods used for MAAAs to identify the criteria used for clinical research and reimbursement purposes.Methods:This review included only non-companion (stand-alone) tests that are actionable and that have been evaluated by leading HTA or insurer/reimbursement bodies up to September 2017.Results:Twenty-five reports and articles evaluating seventeen MAAAs were examined, most of which have been developed in oncology. The two main models used were the EUnetHTA Core model and the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention ACCE framework. Clinical validity and utility criteria were used, as were economic, ethical, legal, and social aspects. Economic evidence on MAAAs was scarce, and there is no consensus on whether the perspectives used are sufficiently broad to include all relevant stakeholders.Conclusions:Clinical utility and efficiency were the most used criteria, with stronger evidence needed linking the use of the algorithm with the clinical outcomes in real-life practice. HTA bodies must as well consider questions related to the analytical validity of MAAAs or with organizational aspects. The two main models, the EUnetHTA Core model and the ACCE framework, could be adapted to the assessment of MAAAs.

InterventionsTargeted therapies have been proven to provide clinical benefits to patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Gefitinib was initially approved and reimbursed as a third-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC by the Taiwan National Health Insurance (NHI) in 2004; subsequently it became a second-line therapy (in 2007) and further a first-line therapy (in 2011) for patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive advanced NSCLC. Another targeted therapy, erlotinib, was initially approved as a third-line therapy in 2007, and it became a second-line therapy in 2008.ObjectivesThis study is aimed towards an exploration of the impacts of the Taiwan NHI reimbursement policies (removing reimbursement restrictions) related to accessibility of targeted therapies.SettingWe retrieved 2004–2013 claims data for all patients with lung cancer diagnoses from the NHI Research Database.Design and outcome measuresUsing an interrupted time series design and segmented regression, we estimated changes in the monthly prescribing rate by patient number and market shares by cost following each modification of the reimbursement policy for gefitinib and erlotinib for NSCLC treatment.ResultsTotally 92 220 patients with NSCLC were identified. The prescribing rate of the targeted therapies increased by 15.58%, decreased by 10.98% and increased by 6.31% following the introduction of gefitinib as a second-line treatment in 2007, erlotinib as a second-line treatment in 2008 and gefitinib as as first line treatment in 2011, respectively. The average time to prescription reduced by 65.84% and 41.59% following coverage of erlotinib by insurance and gefitinib/erlotinib as second-line treatments in 2007–2008 and following gefitinib as the first-line treatment in 2011.ConclusionsThe changes in reimbursement policies had a significant impact on the accessibility of targeted therapies for NSCLC treatment. Removing reimbursement restrictions can significantly increase the level and the speed of drug accessibility.

The Act of 12 May 2011 on the Reimbursement of Medicines, Foodstuffs Intended for Particular Nutritional Uses and Medical Devices constitutes a major change of the reimbursement policy in Poland. The main aims of this Act were to rationalize the reimbursement policy and to reduce spending on reimbursed drugs. The Act seems to have met these goals: reimbursement policy (including pricing of reimbursed drugs) was overhauled and the expenditure of the National Health Fund on reimbursed drugs saw a significant decrease in the year following the Act's introduction. The annual savings achieved since then (mainly due to the introduction of risk sharing schemes), have made it possible to include new drugs into the reimbursement list and improve access to innovative drugs. However, at the same time, the decrease in prices of reimbursed drugs, that the Act brought about, led to an uncontrolled outflow of some of these drugs abroad and shortages in Poland. This paper analyses the main changes introduced by the Reimbursement Act and their implications. Since the Act came into force relatively recently, its full impact on the reimbursement policy is not yet possible to assess.