Adler Loren, Ly Bich, Duffy Erin, Hannick Kathleen, Hall Mark, Trish Erin
Loren Adler (
Bich Ly, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2023 Feb;42(2):227-236. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00738. Epub 2023 Jan 18.
The No Surprises Act prohibits most surprise billing but notably does not apply to ground ambulance services. In this study we created a novel data set that identifies the ownership structure of ground ambulance organizations to compare pricing and billing between private- and public-sector ambulances, with a specific focus on organizations owned by private equity or publicly traded companies. Overall, we found that 28 percent of commercially insured emergency ground ambulance transports during the period 2014-17 resulted in a potential surprise bill. Our analysis illustrates that being transported by a private-sector ambulance in an emergency comes with substantially higher allowed amounts, patient cost sharing, and potential surprise bills compared with being transported by a public-sector ambulance. Further, allowed amounts and cost sharing tended to be higher for private equity- or publicly traded company-owned ambulances than other private-sector ambulances. These findings highlight substantial patient liability and important differences in pricing and billing patterns between public- and private-sector ground ambulance organizations.
《无意外法案》禁止大多数意外计费情况,但值得注意的是,该法案不适用于地面救护车服务。在本研究中,我们创建了一个新颖的数据集,用以确定地面救护车机构的所有权结构,以便比较私营和公共部门救护车的定价和计费情况,特别关注由私募股权公司或上市公司拥有的机构。总体而言,我们发现,在2014年至2017年期间,28% 的商业保险紧急地面救护车运输产生了潜在的意外账单。我们的分析表明,与乘坐公共部门救护车相比,在紧急情况下乘坐私营部门救护车会产生更高的允许金额、患者费用分担以及潜在的意外账单。此外,私募股权公司或上市公司拥有的救护车的允许金额和费用分担往往高于其他私营部门救护车。这些发现凸显了患者承担的巨大责任,以及公共和私营部门地面救护车机构在定价和计费模式上的重要差异。