• 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

白内障手术收费标准价格与医院医疗质量之间的差异

Discrepancy Between Chargemaster Prices and Hospital Quality for Cataract Surgery.

作者信息

Morrison Avery, Amin Abha, Park Steve, Branco Joseph, Chaudhary Richard S, Ahluwalia Jai, Grimes Cara L

机构信息

Department of Ophthalmology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, USA.

Department of Ophthalmology, Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, USA.

出版信息

Cureus. 2024 Nov 22;16(11):e74217. doi: 10.7759/cureus.74217. eCollection 2024 Nov.

DOI:10.7759/cureus.74217
PMID:39717313
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11663616/
Abstract

Background The United States continues to rank as one of the most expensive healthcare systems in the world, and cataract surgery, the most commonly performed surgery, is one of the primary drivers of healthcare expenditure. Increasing efforts have been made to try to minimize U.S. healthcare spending, such as the 2018 Executive Order requiring hospitals to publish a machine-readable list, a , of prices for all offered procedures to increase price transparency and reduce healthcare spending. Given cataract surgery is highly standardized with predictable costs, the goal of this study was to analyze pricing variability for cataract surgery across the United States and determine if there is a relationship between listed chargemaster prices and hospital characteristics or quality. Methodology In this cross-sectional study, all available chargemasters were downloaded in the Spring of 2019 for hospitals across California, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, and Ohio, which were selected to represent different regions of American healthcare. An electronic search algorithm was developed to search each chargemaster using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and specific terms to extract pricing data, such as CPT codes: 66984 and 66982, and search terms: "xcapsular", "cataract", "extracapsular", "xtracaps", "phacoemulsification", "lens extraction". Listed hospital characteristics were also collected, such as hospital type, ownership, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) star rating; urban or rural location; critical access status; and whether the hospital was involved in the training of residents enrolled in an approved graduate medical education program. Results All chargemasters ( = 825) were available and downloadable from hospitals in the selected states. Price listings for cataract procedures differed significantly across the five states included in our analysis (< 0.001). Price listings were highest for California hospitals ($3,240.0) and lowest for Ohio hospitals ($1,268.6), which represented an 87% difference in median prices listed. When price listings were stratified by the CMS Star Quality Rating of the hospital, no significant linear differences were found, and interestingly, the highest quality hospitals (CMS star ranking of 5) had the lowest median of the mean price listed ($1,938.0). General acute care hospitals had the highest median of the mean price listed ($2,370.1) and hospitals run by the state and local government had the highest median of the mean prices listed, $3,254.8 and $4,059.4, respectively. Conclusions Cataract surgery prices varied significantly across the five states chosen to reflect the diversity of the U.S. healthcare system and hospitals, with the highest CMS Quality Star Rating hospitals having the lowest listed cataract surgery prices. This study highlights the disconnect between cost and quality of care, justifying the need for further investigation into what factors truly underlie hospital chargemaster prices. It presents an opportunity to reduce healthcare spending, without fear of losing quality of care.

摘要

背景 美国仍然是世界上医疗保健系统费用最昂贵的国家之一,而白内障手术作为最常进行的手术,是医疗保健支出的主要驱动因素之一。人们已经做出越来越多的努力来尽量减少美国的医疗保健支出,例如2018年的行政命令要求医院公布一份机器可读的清单,列出所有提供的手术的价格,以提高价格透明度并减少医疗保健支出。鉴于白内障手术高度标准化且成本可预测,本研究的目的是分析美国各地白内障手术的定价差异,并确定所列收费主价与医院特征或质量之间是否存在关系。

方法 在这项横断面研究中,2019年春季下载了加利福尼亚州、马萨诸塞州、密西西比州、纽约州和俄亥俄州各医院的所有可用收费主价清单,这些州被选来代表美国医疗保健的不同地区。开发了一种电子搜索算法,使用当前程序术语(CPT)代码和特定术语搜索每个收费主价清单,以提取定价数据,如CPT代码:66984和66982,以及搜索词:“囊外”、“白内障”、“囊外摘除”、“囊外”、“超声乳化”、“晶状体摘除”。还收集了所列的医院特征,如医院类型、所有权以及医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)星级评级;城市或农村位置;关键接入状态;以及该医院是否参与了经批准的研究生医学教育项目的住院医师培训。

结果 所选各州的医院提供了所有(n = 825)收费主价清单且均可下载。我们分析的五个州的白内障手术价格清单差异显著(P < 0.001)。加利福尼亚州医院的价格清单最高(3240.0美元),俄亥俄州医院的价格清单最低(1268.6美元),这意味着所列中位数价格相差87%。当按医院的CMS星级质量评级对价格清单进行分层时,未发现显著的线性差异,有趣的是,质量最高的医院(CMS星级排名为5)所列平均价格中位数最低(1938.0美元)。普通急性护理医院所列平均价格中位数最高(2370.1美元),由州和地方政府运营的医院所列平均价格中位数最高,分别为3254.8美元和4059.4美元。

结论 为反映美国医疗保健系统和医院的多样性而选择的五个州的白内障手术价格差异显著,CMS质量星级评级最高的医院所列白内障手术价格最低。本研究凸显了成本与医疗质量之间的脱节,证明有必要进一步调查真正构成医院收费主价基础的因素。它提供了一个减少医疗保健支出而又不必担心降低医疗质量的机会。

相似文献

1
Discrepancy Between Chargemaster Prices and Hospital Quality for Cataract Surgery.白内障手术收费标准价格与医院医疗质量之间的差异
Cureus. 2024 Nov 22;16(11):e74217. doi: 10.7759/cureus.74217. eCollection 2024 Nov.
2
Chargemaster Pricing Variation for Commonly Billed Procedures in Interventional Cardiology.介入心脏病学中常见计费程序的 chargemaster 定价变化。
South Med J. 2023 Sep;116(9):758-764. doi: 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000001599.
3
Less Than One-third of Hospitals Provide Compliant Price Transparency Information for Total Joint Arthroplasty Procedures.不到三分之一的医院提供符合要求的全膝关节置换术价格透明度信息。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2022 Dec 1;480(12):2316-2326. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002288. Epub 2022 Jun 24.
4
The Variation of Chargemaster Price Listings for Urogynecologic Procedures.《尿妇科手术定价清单的变化》
Urogynecology (Phila). 2024 May 1;30(5):511-518. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001426. Epub 2023 Dec 1.
5
Price transparency implementation: Accessibility of hospital chargemasters and variation in hospital pricing after CMS mandate.价格透明度的实施:CMS 指令后医院收费主文件的可及性和医院定价的变化。
Healthc (Amst). 2020 Sep;8(3):100443. doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2020.100443. Epub 2020 Jul 4.
6
Extracorporeal photopheresis chargemasters show haphazard billing practices.体外光分离术收费员显示出随意的计费做法。
Transfusion. 2021 Oct;61(10):2844-2848. doi: 10.1111/trf.16602. Epub 2021 Jul 23.
7
One-Tenth of the Top 50 Pediatric Orthopedic Hospitals Provide Compliant Price Transparency Information for 15 Common Pediatric Orthopedic Procedures.排名前50的儿科骨科医院中,有十分之一的医院为15种常见儿科骨科手术提供合规的价格透明度信息。
Cureus. 2025 Mar 10;17(3):e80355. doi: 10.7759/cureus.80355. eCollection 2025 Mar.
8
Health Care Price Transparency in Ophthalmology.眼科医疗价格透明度。
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2021 Nov 1;139(11):1210-1216. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2021.3951.
9
Survey of Hospital Chargemaster Transparency.医院收费主文件透明度调查。
Appl Clin Inform. 2021 Mar;12(2):391-398. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1729168. Epub 2021 May 5.
10
The Price-Quality Mismatch: Are Negotiated Prices for Total Joint Arthroplasty Associated With Hospital Quality in a Large California Health System?价格-质量不匹配:在加利福尼亚州的一个大型医疗体系中,全关节置换术的协商价格与医院质量有关吗?
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2023 Jun 1;481(6):1061-1068. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002489. Epub 2022 Dec 13.

本文引用的文献

1
Accessibility and Usability of Hospital Chargemasters in New York State.纽约州医院收费表的可及性与可用性
J Gen Intern Med. 2022 Jun;37(8):2130-2131. doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-07173-x. Epub 2021 Oct 28.
2
Health Care Price Transparency in Ophthalmology.眼科医疗价格透明度。
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2021 Nov 1;139(11):1210-1216. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2021.3951.
3
Price transparency implementation: Accessibility of hospital chargemasters and variation in hospital pricing after CMS mandate.价格透明度的实施:CMS 指令后医院收费主文件的可及性和医院定价的变化。
Healthc (Amst). 2020 Sep;8(3):100443. doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2020.100443. Epub 2020 Jul 4.
4
Overpriced? Are Hospital Prices Associated with the Quality of Care?价格过高?医院价格与医疗质量有关联吗?
Healthcare (Basel). 2020 May 17;8(2):135. doi: 10.3390/healthcare8020135.
5
Mystery Of The Chargemaster: Examining The Role Of Hospital List Prices In What Patients Actually Pay.收费员之谜:研究医院标价在患者实际支付费用中所扮演的角色。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2017 Apr 1;36(4):689-696. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0986.