Mead Mitchell, Ibrahim Andrew M
Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States.
Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States.
Health Aff Sch. 2024 Aug 19;2(9):qxae099. doi: 10.1093/haschl/qxae099. eCollection 2024 Sep.
Concern has been raised about the effectiveness of the Hospital Price Transparency Rule to facilitate a clear understanding of health care prices due to poor reporting by hospitals. However, the relationship between what services the hospital provides and what prices they report is not clear. We assessed reported prices in the Turquoise Health database and compared them at the hospital level with the CMS Provider of Services File to identify if a shoppable service was provided at a hospital. We found significant mismatch between the hospital prices being reported and the services being provided. For example, 56% of hospitals providing at least 1 shoppable service that requires public price reporting did not report any prices. Of hospitals reporting prices, most hospitals (66%) reported prices for only a portion of the services they provide. In addition, 12% of hospitals reported prices for services they do not provide. Only 6% of hospitals had complete concordance with price reporting and services they actually provide. Current compliance enforcement and penalties do not appear to be adequate to achieve the goals of the Hospital Price Transparency Rule.
由于医院报告不佳，人们对《医院价格透明度规则》促进对医疗保健价格的清晰理解的有效性提出了担忧。然而，医院提供的服务与他们报告的价格之间的关系并不明确。我们评估了绿松石健康数据库中报告的价格，并在医院层面将其与医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心（CMS）的服务提供者文件进行比较，以确定医院是否提供了可比较价格的服务。我们发现报告的医院价格与提供的服务之间存在重大不匹配。例如，提供至少一项需要公开价格报告的可比较价格服务的医院中，56%没有报告任何价格。在报告价格的医院中，大多数医院（66%）只报告了他们提供的部分服务的价格。此外，12%的医院报告了他们未提供的服务的价格。只有6%的医院在价格报告与他们实际提供的服务方面完全一致。目前的合规执法和处罚似乎不足以实现《医院价格透明度规则》的目标。
