Analysis of variation in charges and prices paid for vaginal and caesarean section births: a cross-sectional study

This is the publisher's version. To view the original publication, see http://bmjopen.bmj.comThis article aims to examine the between-hospital variation of charges and discounted prices for uncomplicated vaginal and caesarean section deliveries, and to determine the institutional and market-level characteristics that influence adjusted charges. Using data from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), we conducted a cross-sectional study of all privately insured patients admitted to California hospitals in 2011 for uncomplicated vaginal delivery (diagnosis-related group (DRG) 775) or uncomplicated caesarean section (DRG 766). Hospital charges and discounted prices were adjusted for each patient's clinical and demographic characteristics. We analysed 76,766 vaginal deliveries and 32,660 caesarean sections in California in 2011. After adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, we found that the average California woman could be charged as little as US$3,296 or as much as US$37,227 for a vaginal delivery and US$8,312–US$70,908 for a caesarean section depending on which hospital she was admitted to. The discounted prices were, on an average, 37% of the charges. We found that hospitals in markets with middling competition had significantly lower adjusted charges for vaginal deliveries, while hospitals with higher wage indices and casemixes, as well as for-profit hospitals, had higher adjusted charges. Hospitals in markets with higher uninsurance rates charged significantly less for caesarean sections, while for-profit hospitals and hospitals with higher wage indices charged more. However, the institutional and market-level factors included in our models explained only 35–36% of the between-hospital variation in charges. These results indicate that charges and discounted prices for two common, relatively homogeneous diagnosis groups—uncomplicated vaginal delivery and caesarean section—vary widely between hospitals and are not well explained by observable patient or hospital characteristics

Analysis of variation in charges and prices paid for vaginal and caesarean section births: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the between-hospital variation of charges and discounted prices for uncomplicated vaginal and caesarean section deliveries, and to determine the institutional and market-level characteristics that influence adjusted charges. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Using data from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), we conducted a cross-sectional study of all privately insured patients admitted to California hospitals in 2011 for uncomplicated vaginal delivery (diagnosis-related group (DRG) 775) or uncomplicated caesarean section (DRG 766). OUTCOME MEASURES: Hospital charges and discounted prices adjusted for each patients clinical and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: We analysed 76 766 vaginal deliveries and 32 660 caesarean sections in California in 2011. After adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, we found that the average California woman could be charged as little as US$3296 or as much as US$37 227 for a vaginal delivery, and US$8312-US$70 908 for a caesarean section depending on which hospital she was admitted to. The discounted prices were, on an average, 37% of the charges. We found that hospitals in markets with middling competition had significantly lower adjusted charges for vaginal deliveries, while hospitals with higher wage indices and casemixes, as well as for-profit hospitals, had higher adjusted charges. Hospitals in markets with higher uninsurance rates charged significantly less for caesarean sections, while for-profit hospitals and hospitals with higher wage indices charged more. However, the institutional and market-level factors included in our models explained only 35-36% of the between-hospital variation in charges. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that charges and discounted prices for two common, relatively homogeneous diagnosis groups-uncomplicated vaginal delivery and caesarean section-vary widely between hospitals and are not well explained by observable patient or hospital characteristics

Analysis of variation in charges and prices paid for vaginal and caesarean section births: a cross-sectional study.

ObjectiveTo examine the between-hospital variation of charges and discounted prices for uncomplicated vaginal and caesarean section deliveries, and to determine the institutional and market-level characteristics that influence adjusted charges.Design, setting and participantsUsing data from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), we conducted a cross-sectional study of all privately insured patients admitted to California hospitals in 2011 for uncomplicated vaginal delivery (diagnosis-related group (DRG) 775) or uncomplicated caesarean section (DRG 766).Outcome measuresHospital charges and discounted prices adjusted for each patient's clinical and demographic characteristics.ResultsWe analysed 76 766 vaginal deliveries and 32 660 caesarean sections in California in 2011. After adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics, we found that the average California woman could be charged as little as US$3296 or as much as US$37 227 for a vaginal delivery, and US$8312-US$70 908 for a caesarean section depending on which hospital she was admitted to. The discounted prices were, on an average, 37% of the charges. We found that hospitals in markets with middling competition had significantly lower adjusted charges for vaginal deliveries, while hospitals with higher wage indices and casemixes, as well as for-profit hospitals, had higher adjusted charges. Hospitals in markets with higher uninsurance rates charged significantly less for caesarean sections, while for-profit hospitals and hospitals with higher wage indices charged more. However, the institutional and market-level factors included in our models explained only 35-36% of the between-hospital variation in charges.ConclusionsThese results indicate that charges and discounted prices for two common, relatively homogeneous diagnosis groups-uncomplicated vaginal delivery and caesarean section-vary widely between hospitals and are not well explained by observable patient or hospital characteristics

A cross-sectional analysis of variation in charges and prices across California for percutaneous coronary intervention.

Though past studies have shown wide variation in aggregate hospital price indices and specific procedures, few have documented or explained such variation for distinct and common episodes of care.We sought to examine the variability in charges for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a drug-eluting stent and without major complications (MS-DRG-247), and determine whether hospital and market characteristics influenced these charges.We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of adults admitted to California hospitals in 2011 for MS-DRG-247 using patient discharge data from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. We used a two-part linear regression model to first estimate hospital-specific charges adjusted for patient characteristics, and then examine whether the between-hospital variation in those estimated charges was explained by hospital and market characteristics.Adjusted charges for the average California patient admitted for uncomplicated PCI ranged from $22,047 to$165,386 (median: $88,350) depending on which hospital the patient visited. Hospitals in areas with the highest cost of living, those in rural areas, and those with more Medicare patients had higher charges, while government-owned hospitals charged less. Overall, our model explained 43$3,421 to $80,903 (median:$28,571).Charges and estimated discounted prices vary widely between hospitals for the average California patient undergoing PCI without major complications, a common and relatively homogeneous episode of care. Though observable hospital characteristics account for some of this variation, the majority remains unexplained

Comparing Utilization and Costs of Care in Freestanding Emergency Departments, Hospital Emergency Departments, and Urgent Care Centers

Study objective: We compare utilization, price per visit, and the types of care delivered across freestanding emergency departments (EDs), hospital-based EDs, and urgent care centers in Texas. Methods: We analyzed insurance claims processed by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas from 2012 to 2015 for patient visits to freestanding EDs, hospital-based EDs, or urgent care centers in 16 Texas metropolitan statistical areas containing 84.1% of the state’s population. We calculated the aggregate number of visits, average price per visit, proportion of price attributable to facility and physician services, and proportion of price billed to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas versus out of pocket, by facility type. Prices for the top 20 diagnoses and procedures by facility type are compared. Results: Texans use hospital-based EDs and urgent care centers much more than freestanding EDs, but freestanding ED utilization increased 236% between 2012 and 2015. The average price per visit was lower for freestanding EDs versus hospital-based EDs in 2012 ($1,431 versus$1,842), but prices in 2015 were comparable ($2,199 versus$2,259). Prices for urgent care centers were only $164 and$168 in 2012 and 2015. Out-of-pocket liability for consumers for all these facilities increased slightly from 2012 to 2015. There was 75% overlap in the 20 most common diagnoses at freestanding EDs versus urgent care centers and 60% overlap for hospital-based EDs and urgent care centers. However, prices for patients with the same diagnosis were on average almost 10 times higher at freestanding and hospital-based EDs relative to urgent care centers. Conclusion: Utilization of freestanding EDs is rapidly expanding in Texas. Higher prices at freestanding and hospital-based EDs relative to urgent care centers, despite substantial overlap in services delivered, imply potential inefficient use of emergency facilities

Characteristics of California hospitals in sample (n = 124).

<p>Characteristics of California hospitals in sample (n = 124).</p

Sample Selection.

<p>Flow chart of exclusions from the original starting sample of all adult (≥18 years old) patients admitted for MS-DRG-247 leading to the final 4,387 patients studied. Missing variables generally referred to masked items in the public dataset used to protect the identity of patients. “No coordinates” indicates an inability to locate the hospital.</p

The impact of hospital and market characteristics on adjusted charges.

<p>Legend: In this second step of our two-part regression, we regressed hospital and market characteristics on the log of the adjusted average charges per length of stay at each hospital generated from the first regression. The effects displayed here represent the impact the variable in question had on the hospital’s charge for the average California patient. They are calculated as the difference between the exponentiated coefficients from the model and one, to show percent change.</p

Inconsistent Surgical Implant Documentation: A Case Study in Total Knee and Hip Arthroplasty

Value-based care initiatives require accurate quantification of resource utilization. This study explores hospital resource documentation performance for total knee and hip arthroplasty (TKA, THA) implants and how this may differ between hospitals. This retrospective study utilized the Premier discharge database, years 2006 to 2020. TKA/THA cases were categorized into 5 tiers based upon the completeness of implant component documentation: Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze, Poor. Correlation between TKA and THA documentation performance (per-hospital percentage of Platinum cases) was assessed. Logistic regression analyses measured the association between hospital characteristics (region, teaching status, bed size, urban/rural) and satisfactory documentation. TKA/THA implant documentation performance was compared to documentation for endovascular stent procedures. Individual hospitals tended to have very complete (Platinum) or very incomplete (Poor) documentation for both TKA and THA. TKA and THA documentation performance were correlated (correlation coefficient = .70). Teaching hospitals were less likely to have satisfactory documentation for both TKA ( P  = .002) and THA ( P  = .029). Documentation for endovascular stent procedures was superior compared to TKA/THA. Hospitals’ TKA and THA-related implant documentation performance is generally either very proficient or very poor, in contrast with often well-documented endovascular stent procedures. Hospital characteristics, other than teaching status, do not appear to impact TKA/THA documentation completeness