La Forgia Ambar, Bond Amelia M, Braun Robert Tyler, Kjaer Klaus, Zhang Manyao, Casalino Lawrence P
Department of Health Policy and Management, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Division of Health Policy and Economics, Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Oct 1;181(10):1324-1331. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4564.
Several states have passed surprise-billing legislation to protect patients from unanticipated out-of-network medical bills, yet little is known about how state laws influence out-of-network prices and whether spillovers exist to in-network prices.
To identify any changes in prices paid to out-of-network anesthesiologists at in-network facilities and to in-network anesthesiologists before and after states passed surprise-billing legislation.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective economic analysis used difference-in-differences methods to compare price changes before and after the passage of legislation in California, Florida, and New York, which passed comprehensive surprise-billing legislation between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2017, to 45 states that did not. Commercial claims data from the Health Care Cost Institute were used to identify prices paid to anesthesiologists in hospital outpatient departments and ambulatory surgery centers. The final analytic sample comprised 2 713 913 anesthesia claims across the 3 treated states and the 45 control states.
Temporal and state-level variation in exposure to surprise-billing legislation.
The unit price (allowed amounts standardized per unit of service) paid to out-of-network anesthesiologists at in-network facilities and to in-network anesthesiologists.
This retrospective economic analysis of 2 713 913 anesthesia claims found that after surprise-billing laws were passed in 3 states, the unit price paid to out-of-network anesthesiologists at in-network facilities decreased significantly in 2 of them: California, -$12.71 (95% CI, -$25.70 to -$0.27; P = .05) and Florida, -$35.67 (95% CI, -$46.27 to -$25.07; P < .001). In New York, a decline in the overall out-of-network price was not statistically significant (-$7.91; 95% CI, -$17.48 to -$1.68; P = .10); however, by the fourth quarter of 2017, the decline was -$41.28 (95% CI, -$70.24 to -$12.33; P = .01). In-network prices decreased in California by -$10.68 (95% CI, -$12.70 to -$8.66; P < .001); in Florida, -$3.18 (95% CI, -$5.17 to -$1.19; P = .002); and in New York, -$8.05 (95% CI, -$11.46 to -$4.64; P < .001).
This retrospective study found that prices paid to in-network and out-of-network anesthesiologists in hospital outpatient departments and ambulatory surgery centers decreased after the introduction of surprise-billing legislation, providing early insights into how prices may change under the federal No Surprises Act and in states that have recently passed their own legislation.
几个州已通过意外账单立法,以保护患者免受意外的网络外医疗账单影响,但对于州法律如何影响网络外价格以及是否存在对网络内价格的溢出效应知之甚少。
确定在州通过意外账单立法前后,网络内医疗机构支付给网络外麻醉师以及网络内麻醉师的价格变化。
设计、设置和参与者:这项回顾性经济分析采用差分法,比较了加利福尼亚州、佛罗里达州和纽约州在2014年1月1日至2017年12月31日期间通过全面意外账单立法的3个州,与未通过的45个州立法前后的价格变化。利用医疗保健成本研究所的商业索赔数据,确定医院门诊部和门诊手术中心支付给麻醉师的价格。最终分析样本包括3个处理州和45个对照州的2713913份麻醉索赔。
意外账单立法的时间和州层面的变化。
网络内医疗机构支付给网络外麻醉师以及网络内麻醉师的单价(每服务单位标准化的允许金额)。
这项对2713913份麻醉索赔的回顾性经济分析发现,在3个州通过意外账单法律后,其中2个州网络内医疗机构支付给网络外麻醉师的单价显著下降:加利福尼亚州,下降12.71美元(95%置信区间,-25.70美元至-0.27美元;P = 0.05);佛罗里达州,下降35.67美元(95%置信区间,-46.27美元至-25.07美元;P < 0.001)。在纽约州,网络外总体价格下降无统计学意义(-7.91美元;95%置信区间,-17.48美元至-1.68美元;P = 0.10);然而,到2017年第四季度,下降了41.28美元(95%置信区间,-70.24美元至-12.33美元;P = 0.01)。加利福尼亚州网络内价格下降了10.68美元(95%置信区间,-12.70美元至-8.66美元;P < 0.001);佛罗里达州,下降3.18美元(95%置信区间,-5.17美元至-1.19美元;P = 0.002);纽约州,下降8.05美元(95%置信区间,-11.46美元至-4.64美元;P < 0.001)。
这项回顾性研究发现,在引入意外账单立法后,医院门诊部和门诊手术中心支付给网络内和网络外麻醉师的价格下降,为联邦《无意外法案》以及最近通过自身立法的州的价格可能如何变化提供了早期见解。