Search

Medical service charges, which remain consistent across all payers, do not affect the statutorily determined reimbursements from public payers, such as Medicare and Medicaid fee-for-service programs.[1], [2] These charges, however, have important implications for the price paid by private payers, uninsured patients, and out-of-network patients.[1], [2] Prior research found that service charges relative to Medicare payment varied across medical specialties in 2014 and the trend of charges relative to the Medicare payment differed among a few major medical specialties from 2012 to 2018.[1], [3] The specific trend for each individual medical specialty, however, remains unknown. 2010 USD were converted to 2019 USD using the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index SP b sp 2010 charge to Medicare payment ratio is not associated with % change in weighted average charge, 2010-2019 (correlation coefficient: 0.16; I P i = 0.25), or with % change in weighted average Medicare payment, 2010-2019 (correlation coefficient: 0.18; I P i = 0.20) Across all 51 specialties, the 2010-2019 percent change in weighted average charge is highly positively associated with the percent change in weighted average Medicare payment (correlation coefficient: 0.87; I P i < 0.001). [Extracted from the article]

The article presents the direct financial burden of COVID-19 testing on patients is largely removed by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, and most insurers to eliminate cost sharing to hospitals for testing patients. Topics include the hospitals also are prohibited by the Department of Health and Human Services from balance billing patients, and the high hospital charges can lead to high payment by private insurance plans.

A letter to the editor is presented regarding variations in the ratio of physician charges to Medicare payments by specialty and region.

California’s Hospital Fair Pricing Act, passed in 2006, aims to protect uninsured patients from paying hospital gross charges: the full, undiscounted prices based on each hospital's chargemaster. In this study I examined how the law affects the net price actually paid by uninsured patients—a question critical for evaluating the law's impact. I found that from 2004 to 2012 the net price actually paid by uninsured patients shrank from 6 percent higher than Medicare prices to 68 percent lower than Medicare prices; the adjusted collection ratio, essentially the amount the hospital actually collected for every dollar in gross price charged, for uninsured patients dropped from 32 percent to 11 percent; and although hospitals have been increasingly less able to generate revenues from uninsured patients, they have raised the proportion of services provided to them in relation to total services provided to all patients. The substantial protection provided to uninsured patients by the California Hospital Fair Pricing Act has important implications for federal and state policy makers seeking to achieve a similar goal. States or Congress could legislate criteria determining the eligibility for discounted charges, mandate a lower price ceiling, and regulate for-profit hospitals in regard to uninsured patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Biosimilars can generate competition and provide cost savings over reference biologics for the Medicare program and beneficiaries. The extent to which these benefits can be realized in the Medicare Part D program depends on how biosimilars and biologics are placed in the formulary. We conducted a study to examine Medicare formulary placement of the first biologic to have 2 biosimilars on the market—infliximab and its biosimilars infliximab-dyyb and infliximab-abda. Methods All standalone and Medicare Advantage (MA) prescription drug plans (PDPs) offered in Medicare Part D were examined between September 2016 (ie, at the end of the last quarter before the launch of the first infliximab biosimilar) and September 2018, at which time a second biosimilar had been on the market for about 14 months. When PDPs covered both the reference biologic and a biosimilar, we compared the cost-sharing tier and the frequency of prior authorization and step therapy requirements for each drug. Results Nearly all PDPs covered infliximab throughout the study period. By September 2018, 31.7% of MA plans and 14.9% of standalone PDPs were covering a biosimilar on the market. Nearly all plans that covered a biosimilar also covered the reference product. Most plans (98% of standalone PDPs and 89% of MA plans) had placed prior authorization restrictions on both the biologic and the biosimilar. All plans covering both products placed them in the same cost-sharing tier. No plan required step therapy for either product. Conclusion Formulary placement of infliximab biologic and biosimilars in Medicare Part D is not optimized to generate cost savings for the Medicare program and beneficiaries, whose cost sharing is often based on the drug's list price. The Medicare program should provide incentives for PDPs to expand biosimilar coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Although independent charity patient assistance programs improve patient access to costly prescription drugs, recent federal investigations have raised questions about their potential to increase pharmaceutical spending and to violate the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Little is known about the design of the programs, patient eligibility, or drug coverage.Objective: To examine the eligibility criteria of the independent charity patient assistance programs and the drugs covered by them.Design, Setting, and Participants: Descriptive cross-sectional study of the 6 largest independent charities offering patient assistance programs for patients including, but not limited to, Medicare beneficiaries in 2018. These charities offered 274 different disease-specific patient assistance programs. Drugs were identified for subgroup analysis that had any use reported on the Medicare Part D spending dashboard and any off-patent brand-name drugs that incurred more than $10 000 in Medicare spending per beneficiary in 2016.Exposures: Support by independent charity patient assistance programs.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the characteristics of patient assistance programs, including assistance type, insurance coverage (vs uninsured), and income eligibility. The secondary outcomes were the cost of the drugs covered by the patient assistance programs and the coverage of expensive off-patent brand-name drugs vs substitutable generic drugs.Results: Among the 6 independent charity foundations included in the analysis, their total revenue in 2017 ranged from $24 million to $532 million, and expenditures on patient assistance programs ranged from $24 million to $353 million, representing on average, 86% of their revenue. Of the 274 patient assistance programs offered by these organizations, 168 (61%) provided only co-payment assistance, and the most common therapeutic area covered was cancer or cancer treatment-related symptoms (113 patient assistance programs; 41%). A total of 267 programs (97%) required insurance coverage as an eligibility criterion (ie, excluded uninsured patients). The most common income eligibility limit was 500% of the federal poverty level. The median annual cost of the drugs per beneficiary covered by the programs was $1157 (interquartile range, $247-$5609) compared with $367 (interquartile range, $100-$1500) for the noncovered drugs. Off-patent brand-name drugs (cost: >$10 000) were covered by a mean of 3.1 (SD, 2.0) patient assistance programs, whereas their generic equivalents were covered by a mean of 1.2 (SD, 1.0) patient assistance programs.Conclusions and Relevance: In 2018, among 274 patient assistance programs operated by the 6 independent charity foundations, the majority did not provide coverage for uninsured patients. Medications that were covered by the patient assistance programs were generally more expensive than those that were not covered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]