Why the US spends more treating high-need high-cost patients: a comparative study of pricing and utilization of care in six high-income countries.

One of the most pressing challenges facing most health care systems is rising costs. As the population ages and the demand for health care services grows, there is a growing need to understand the drivers of these costs across systems. This paper attempts to address this gap by examining utilization and spending of the course of a year for two specific high-need high-cost patient types: a frail older person with a hip fracture and an older person with congestive heart failure and diabetes. Data on utilization and expenditure is collected across five health care settings (hospital, post-acute rehabilitation, primary care, outpatient specialty and drugs), in six countries (Canada (Ontario), France, Germany, Spain (Aragon), Sweden and the United States (fee for service Medicare) and used to construct treatment episode Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs) that compare prices using baskets of goods from the different care settings. The treatment episode PPPs suggest other countries have more similar volumes of care to the US as compared to other standardization approaches, suggesting that US prices account for more of the differential in US health care expenditures. The US also differs with regards to the share of expenditures across care settings, with post-acute rehab and outpatient speciality expenditures accounting for a larger share of the total relative to comparators

An international comparison of long‐term care trajectories and spending following hip fracture

Objective The objectives of this study are to compare the relative use of different postacute care settings in different countries and to compare three important outcomes as follows: total expenditure, total days of care in different care settings, and overall longevity over a 1-year period following a hip fracture. Data Sources We used administrative data from hospitals, institutional and home-based long-term care (LTC), physician visits, and medications compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes, and Needs in Care (ICCONIC) from five countries as follows: Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Data Extraction Methods Data were extracted from existing administrative data systems in each participating country. Study Design This is a retrospective cohort study of all individuals admitted to acute care for hip fracture. Descriptive comparisons were used to examine aggregate institutional and home-based postacute care. Care trajectories were created to track sequential care settings after acute-care discharge through institutional and community-based care in three countries where detailed information allowed. Comparisons in patient characteristics, utilization, and costs were made across these trajectories and countries. Principal Findings Across five countries with complete LTC data, we found notable variations with Germany having the highest days of home-based services with relatively low costs, while Sweden incurred the highest overall expenditures. Comparisons of trajectories found that France had the highest use of inpatient rehabilitation. Germany was most likely to discharge hip fracture patients to home. Over 365 days, France averaged the highest number of days in institution with 104, Canada followed at 94, and Germany had just 87 days of institutional care on average. Conclusion In this comparison of LTC services following a hip fracture, we found international differences in total use of institutional and noninstitutional care, longevity, and total expenditures. There exist opportunities to organize postacute care differently to maximize independence and mitigate costs

International comparison of health spending and utilization among people with complex multimorbidity

Objective The objective of this study was to explore cross-country differences in spending and utilization across different domains of care for a multimorbid persona with heart failure and diabetes. Data Sources We used individual-level administrative claims or registry data from inpatient and outpatient health care sectors compiled by the International Collaborative on Costs, Outcomes, and Needs in Care (ICCONIC) across 11 countries: Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States (US). Data Collection/Extraction Methods Data collected by ICCONIC partners. Study Design We retrospectively analyzed age–sex standardized utilization and spending of an older person (65–90 years) hospitalized with a heart failure exacerbation and a secondary diagnosis of diabetes across five domains of care: hospital care, primary care, outpatient specialty care, post–acute rehabilitative care, and outpatient drugs. Principal Findings Sample sizes ranged from n = 1270 in Spain to n = 21,803 in the United States. Mean age (standard deviation [SD]) ranged from 76.2 (5.6) in the Netherlands to 80.3 (6.8) in Sweden. We observed substantial variation in spending and utilization across care settings. On average, England spent $10,956 per person in hospital care while the United States spent$30,877. The United States had a shorter length of stay over the year (18.9 days) compared to France (32.9) and Germany (33.4). The United States spent more days in facility-based rehabilitative care than other countries. Australia spent $421 per person in primary care, while Spain (Aragon) spent$1557. The United States and Canada had proportionately more visits to specialist providers than primary care providers. Across almost all sectors, the United States spent more than other countries, suggesting higher prices per unit. Conclusion Across 11 countries, there is substantial variation in health care spending and utilization for a complex multimorbid persona with heart failure and diabetes. Drivers of spending vary across countries, with the United States being the most expensive country due to high prices and higher use of facility-based rehabilitative care

Balancing financial incentives during COVID-19 : a comparison of provider payment adjustments across 20 countries

Objective Provider payment mechanisms were adjusted in many countries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Our objective was to review adjustments for hospitals and healthcare professionals across 20 countries. Method We developed an analytical framework distinguishing between payment adjustments compensating income loss and those covering extra costs related to COVID-19. Information was extracted from the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) and classified according to the framework. Findings We found that income loss was not a problem in countries where professionals were paid by salary or capitation and hospitals received global budgets. In countries where payment was based on activity, income loss was compensated through budgets and higher fees. New FFS payments were introduced to incentivize remote services. Payments for COVID-19 related costs included new fees for out- and inpatient services but also new PD and DRG tariffs for hospitals. Budgets covered the costs of adjusting wards, creating new (ICU) beds, and hiring staff. Conclusions We conclude that public payers assumed most of the COVID-19-related financial risk. In view of future pandemics policymakers should work to increase resilience of payment systems by: (1) having systems in place to rapidly adjust payment systems; (2) being aware of the economic incentives created by these adjustments such as cost-containment or increasing the number of patients or services, that can result in unintended consequences such as risk selection or overprovision of care; and (3) periodically evaluating the effects of payment adjustments on access and quality of care