• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

急诊科患者的成本意识。

Patient cost consciousness in the emergency department.

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, 464 Congress Avenue, New Haven, CT 06519, US; MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, 3800 Reservoir Rd NW, Washington, DC 20007, US.

Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, 464 Congress Avenue, New Haven, CT 06519, US; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 3550 Terrace Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, US.

出版信息

Am J Emerg Med. 2022 Nov;61:61-63. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2022.08.039. Epub 2022 Aug 19.

DOI:10.1016/j.ajem.2022.08.039
PMID:36054987
Abstract

BACKGROUND

'Surprise billing', or the phenomenon of unexpected coverage gaps in which patients receiving out-of-network medical bills after what they thought was in-network care, has been a major focus of policymakers and advocacy groups recently, particularly in the Emergency Department (ED) setting, where patients' ability to choose a provider is exceedingly limited. The No Surprises Act is the legislative culmination to address "surprise bills," with the aim of promoting price transparency as a solution for billing irregularities. However, the knowledge and perceptions of patients regarding emergency care price transparency, particularly the degree to which ED patients are cost conscious is unknown. Accordingly, we sought to quantify that perception by measuring patients' direct predictions for the cost of their care.

METHODS

We conducted an in-person survey of patients in Emergency Departments (EDs) over an 10-month period at two campuses within a large academic hospital system in southern Connecticut. We surveyed a convenience sample of patients at the bedside regarding demographics, care seeking perceptions and their estimates of the total and out-of-pocket costs for their ED care. Survey data was linked to institutional hospital finance datasets including actual charges and payments. We then later obtained the actual costs and billed amounts and compared these to the patients' estimates using a paired t-test. We also analyzed results according to certain patient demographics.

RESULTS

A total of 600 patients were approached for survey, and data from 455 were available for the final analysis. On average, patients overestimated the cost of their care by $2484 and overestimated out-of-pocket cost by $144; both of these results met statistical significance (p < .005). Patients were better able to predict both total and out-of-pocket costs if they were: college educated or above; unemployed or retired; aged 65 or older; or had private insurance. Uninsured patients could better predict total cost but not out-of-pocket costs. One in 4 patients reported considering the cost of care prior to visiting the ED. Only 12 patients reported trying to look up that price before coming.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to our knowledge that sought to quantify how patients perceive the cost of acute, unscheduled care in the ED. We found that ED patients generally do not consider the price before going to the ED, and subsequently overestimate the negotiated total costs of acute, unscheduled emergency care as well as their out-of-pocket responsibility for care. Certain demographics are less predictive of this association. Notably, patients with Medicare/Medicaid and those with high school education or below were of the furthest off in predicting the actual cost of care. This lends credence to the established trend of patients' limited knowledge of the total cost of healthcare; moreover, that they overestimate the cost of their care could serve as a barrier to accessing that care particularly in more vulnerable groups. We hope that this finding adds useful information to policymakers in sculpting future legislation around surprise billing.

摘要

背景

“意外计费”,即患者在接受预期的网络内医疗服务后收到网络外账单的现象,最近一直是政策制定者和宣传团体的主要关注点,尤其是在急诊部(ED),患者选择提供者的能力受到极大限制。《无意外法案》是解决“意外计费”问题的立法成果,旨在提高价格透明度,以解决计费违规问题。然而,患者对紧急护理价格透明度的了解和看法,尤其是 ED 患者对成本的意识程度尚不清楚。因此,我们试图通过衡量患者对护理费用的直接预测来量化这种看法。

方法

我们在康涅狄格州南部一个大型学术医院系统的两个校区的急诊部进行了为期 10 个月的面对面调查。我们在床边对便利样本的患者进行了关于人口统计学、寻求护理的看法以及他们对 ED 护理总费用和自付费用的估计的调查。调查数据与包括实际收费和支付的机构医院财务数据集相关联。然后,我们获得了实际费用和计费金额,并使用配对 t 检验将这些与患者的估计值进行比较。我们还根据某些患者人口统计学数据对结果进行了分析。

结果

共向 600 名患者提出了调查请求,其中 455 名患者提供了最终分析数据。平均而言,患者高估了他们的护理费用 2484 美元,高估了自付费用 144 美元;这两个结果均具有统计学意义(p <.005)。如果患者受过大学或以上教育、失业或退休、年龄在 65 岁或以上、或有私人保险,他们能够更好地预测总费用和自付费用。没有保险的患者可以更好地预测总费用,但不能预测自付费用。每 4 名患者中就有 1 名在去急诊部之前考虑过护理费用。只有 12 名患者报告说在来之前试图查找该价格。

结论

这项研究是我们所知的第一个试图量化 ED 患者如何看待急性非计划性护理费用的研究。我们发现,ED 患者在去 ED 之前通常不会考虑价格,随后高估了急性非计划性急诊护理的协商总费用以及他们自付护理费用的责任。某些人口统计学因素对这种关联的预测能力较差。值得注意的是,医疗保险/医疗补助患者和高中及以下学历患者对护理实际费用的预测最为不准确。这证明了患者对医疗保健总成本的了解有限的既定趋势;此外,他们对护理费用的高估可能会成为特别是在更脆弱群体中获得护理的障碍。我们希望这一发现为政策制定者在制定意外计费相关未来立法时提供有用的信息。

相似文献

1
Patient cost consciousness in the emergency department.急诊科患者的成本意识。
Am J Emerg Med. 2022 Nov;61:61-63. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2022.08.039. Epub 2022 Aug 19.
2
Out-of-Network Air Ambulance Bills: Prevalence, Magnitude, and Policy Solutions.非联网空中救护账单:流行程度、规模和政策解决方案。
Milbank Q. 2020 Sep;98(3):747-774. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12464. Epub 2020 Jun 11.
3
Surprise Out-of-Network Bills for Hand and Upper Extremity Trauma Patients.手和上肢创伤患者的意外网络外账单。
J Hand Surg Am. 2022 Dec;47(12):1230.e1-1230.e17. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2021.09.015. Epub 2021 Nov 8.
4
Association of Surprise-Billing Legislation with Prices Paid to In-Network and Out-of-Network Anesthesiologists in California, Florida, and New York: An Economic Analysis.加利福尼亚州、佛罗里达州和纽约州意外账单立法与支付给网络内和网络外麻醉医师的价格之间的关联:一项经济分析
JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Oct 1;181(10):1324-1331. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4564.
5
The Cost Shifting Economics of United States Emergency Department Professional Services (2016-2019).美国急诊专业服务的成本转移经济学(2016-2019)。
Ann Emerg Med. 2023 Dec;82(6):637-646. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2023.04.026. Epub 2023 Jun 17.
6
Cost reduction strategies for emergency services: insurance role, practice changes and patients accountability.降低急诊服务成本的策略:保险的作用、实践的改变和患者的责任。
Health Care Anal. 2009 Mar;17(1):1-19. doi: 10.1007/s10728-008-0081-0. Epub 2008 Feb 28.
7
The impacts of New York's balance billing regulation on ground ambulance pricing.纽约平衡计费法规对地面救护车定价的影响。
Health Serv Res. 2025 Apr;60(2):e14387. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.14387. Epub 2024 Oct 16.
8
Patient Motivators for Emergency Department Utilization: A Pilot Cross-Sectional Survey of Uninsured Admitted Patients at a University Teaching Hospital.
J Emerg Med. 2015 Aug;49(2):203-10.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2015.03.019. Epub 2015 Jun 9.
9
Variation in Emergency Department vs Internal Medicine Excess Charges in the United States.美国急诊科与内科超额收费的差异。
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Aug 1;177(8):1139-1145. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.1598.
10
Total and Out-of-Pocket Costs Surrounding Emergency Department Care Among Older Adults Enrolled in Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.老年人在传统医疗保险和医疗保险优势计划下急诊护理的总费用和自付费用。
Ann Emerg Med. 2024 Sep;84(3):285-294. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2024.04.023. Epub 2024 Jun 12.

引用本文的文献

1
Payment perception in the emergency department: The mediating role of perceived quality of healthcare and patient satisfaction.急诊科的支付感知:医疗保健感知质量和患者满意度的中介作用。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 Jun 7;103(23):e38527. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038527.