A Systematic Review of the Association Between Hospital Cost/price and the Quality of Care

Payer-Negotiated Price Variation and Relationship to Surgical Outcomes for the Most Common Cancers at NCI-Designated Cancer Centers

BACKGROUND

Federal rules mandate that hospitals publish payer-specific negotiated prices for all services. Little is known about variation in payer-negotiated prices for surgical oncology services or their relationship to clinical outcomes. We assessed variation in payer-negotiated prices associated with surgical care for common cancers at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers and determined the effect of increasing payer-negotiated prices on the odds of morbidity and mortality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis of 63 NCI-designated cancer center websites was employed to assess variation in payer-negotiated prices. A retrospective cohort study of 15,013 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing surgery for colon, pancreas, or lung cancers at an NCI-designated cancer center between 2014 and 2018 was conducted to determine the relationship between payer-negotiated prices and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the effect of median payer-negotiated price on odds of a composite outcome of 30 days mortality and serious postoperative complications for each cancer cohort.

RESULTS

Within-center prices differed by up to 48.8-fold, and between-center prices differed by up to 675-fold after accounting for geographic variation in costs of providing care. Among the 15,013 patients discharged from 20 different NCI-designated cancer centers, the effect of normalized median payer-negotiated price on the composite outcome was clinically negligible, but statistically significantly positive for colon [aOR 1.0094 (95% CI 1.0051-1.0138)], lung [aOR 1.0145 (1.0083-1.0206)], and pancreas [aOR 1.0080 (1.0040-1.0120)] cancer cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Payer-negotiated prices are statistically significantly but not clinically meaningfully related to morbidity and mortality for the surgical treatment of common cancers. Higher payer-negotiated prices are likely due to factors other than clinical quality.

Quality, outcome, and cost of care provided to very low birth weight infants in California

OBJECTIVE

To examine association of costs with quality of care and patient outcome across hospitals in California.

METHODS

Retrospective study of very low birth weight (VLBW) births from 2014-2018 linking birth certificate, hospital discharge records and clinical data. Quality was measured using the Baby-MONITOR score. Clinical outcome was measured using survival without major morbidity (SWMM). Hierarchical generalized linear models, adjusting for clinical factors, were used to estimate risk-adjusted measures of costs, quality, and outcome for each hospital. Association between these measures was evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

In total, 15,415 infants from 104 NICUs were included. Risk-adjusted Baby-MONITOR score, SWMM rate, and costs varied substantially. There was no correlation between risk-adjusted cost and Baby-MONITOR score (r = 0, p = 0.998). Correlation between risk-adjusted cost and SWMM rate was inverse and not significant (r = -0.07, p = 0.48).

CONCLUSIONS

With the metrics used, we found no correlation between cost, quality, and outcomes in the care of VLBW infants.

Price Transparency in United States' Health Care: A Narrative Policy Review of the Current State and Way Forward

Health care price transparency is gaining momentum as a tangible policy intervention that can unleash market principles to increase competition, help begin to decrease U.S. health care expenditures, and provide Americans with access to affordable, high-quality health care. Indeed, pricing reform is required to facilitate patient shopping in health care. In this narrative policy review, we offer a brief history of health care price transparency efforts and an overview of the health care price transparency literature. Further, we highlight the current rules and legislative initiatives aimed at achieving the full potential of health care price transparency. Lastly, we offer key takeaways and highlight suggestions for future policy directions, including the need to ensure hospital and insurance compliance through more appropriate penalties and incentives, importance of reducing regulation to promote financial upside that can be obtained by both patients and providers who actively promote shopping for lower cost, higher quality health care goods and services, and the need for transparent and easily found quality metrics, including outcomes most important to patients, driven by physicians "on the ground" with patient input.

Is there an association between out-of-pocket hospital costs, quality and care outcomes? A systematic review of contemporary evidence

BACKGROUND

Out of pocket (OOP) costs vary substantially by health condition, procedure, provider, and service location. Evidence of whether this variation is associated with indicators of healthcare quality and/or health outcomes is lacking.

METHODS

The current review aimed to explore whether higher OOP costs translate into better healthcare quality and outcomes for patients in inpatient settings. The review also aimed to identify the population and contextual-level determinants of inpatient out-of-pocket costs. A systematic electronic search of five databases: Scopus, Medline, Psych Info, CINAHL and Embase was conducted between January 2000 to October 2022. Study procedures and reporting complied with PRISMA guidelines. The protocol is available at PROSPERO (CRD42022320763).

FINDINGS

A total of nine studies were included in the final review. A variety of quality and health outcomes were examined in the included studies across a range of patient groups and specialities. The scant evidence available and substantial heterogeneity created challenges in establishing the nature of association between OOP costs and healthcare quality and outcomes. Nonetheless, the most consistent finding was no significant association between OOP cost and inpatient quality of care and outcomes.

INTERPRETATION

The review findings overall suggest no beneficial effect of higher OOP costs on inpatient quality of care and health outcomes. Further work is needed to elucidate the determinants of OOP hospital costs.

FUNDING

This study was funded by Medibank Better Health Foundation.

The Association Between Hospital Financial Performance and the Quality of Care - A Scoping Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Improving the quality of hospital care is an important policy objective. Hospitals operate under pressure to contain costs and might face challenges related to financial deficits. The objective of this paper was to identify and map the available evidence on the association between hospital financial performance (FP) and quality of care (Q).

METHODS

A scoping review was performed. Searches were conducted in 7 databases: Medline via PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, EconLit, ABI/INFORM, and Business Source Complete. The search strategy combined multiple terms from 3 topics: hospital AND FP AND Q. The collected data were analysed using both quantitative and qualitative methods.

RESULTS

10 503 records were screened and 151 full text papers analysed. A total of 69 papers were included (60 empirical, 2 theoretical, 5 literature reviews, and 2 dissertations). The majority of identified studies were published within the last decade (2010-2021). Most empirical studies had been conducted in the United States (55/60), used cross-sectional approaches (32/60) and applied diverse regression models with FP measures as dependent variables, thus measuring the impact of Q on hospitals FP (34/60). The comparability of the studies' results is limited due to differences in applied methods and settings. Yet, the general overview shows that in almost half of the cases the association between hospital FP and Q was positive, while no study showed a clear negative association.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review provides an overview of the available literature on the association between hospital FP and Q. The results highlight numerous research gaps: (1) systematic reviews and meta-analyses of existing studies with similar measures of FP and Q are unavailable, (2) further methodological/conceptual work is needed on the metrics measuring hospital FP and Q, and (3) more empirical studies should analyse the association between FP and Q in non-US healthcare settings.

Complexities of Simultaneously Improving Quality and Lowering Costs in Hospitals Comment on "Hospitals Bending the Cost Curve With Increased Quality: A Scoping Review Into Integrated Hospital Strategies"

As health systems transition to value-based care delivery models, reducing costs and improving quality of care without sacrificing either remains a challenge for many healthcare organizations. There is extensive research on hospital costs, however, works addressing the complex relationship between hospital costs and the quality of care have been limited. In this commentary, I expound on the scoping review on integrated hospital strategies by Wackers et al that aim to improve quality while lowering costs. Specifically, I reiterate the complexity of the relationship between cost and quality and delve into major interdependent themes identified by the authors as relevant for the implementation of hospitals' integrated strategy.

Association of Medicare Advantage Premiums With Measures of Quality and Patient Experience

Importance

Quality of care varies substantially across Medicare Advantage plans. The price information that Medicare Advantage enrollees are most likely to consider when selecting a Medicare Advantage plan is the monthly premium. Enrollees may select plans to minimize premium or, alternatively, use premium as a proxy for quality and select plans with higher premiums; however, quality implications of these choices are unknown.

Objective

To determine the extent to which the quality of care offered by Medicare Advantage plans varies within vs across premium levels.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of the population enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans in 2016 to 2017 using clinical quality measures from the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS), patient experience measures from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) surveys, and administrative data. Data were analyzed from March 2021 to March 2022.

Exposures

Medicare Advantage monthly premium.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Ten publicly reported 2017 HEDIS measures and 5 publicly reported 2017 CAHPS measures linearly transformed to a 0 to 100 scale.

Results

The 168 968 Medicare Advantage CAHPS respondents were representative of the enrollee population (14% were <65 years old and eligible through disability; 24% ≥80 years old; sex and race/ethnicity data were not considered); 40% were in 591 plans with no monthly premiums and less than 6% were in 144 plans with monthly premiums of $120 or more. There were from 77 054 to 2 139 422 enrollees by HEDIS measure. Among all Medicare Advantage enrollees, 79% were in plans with either a $0 premium or a low monthly premium (≤$60); patient experience and clinical quality were generally similar in these 2 categories of plans. To a small extent, enrollees in moderately high ($60-$120) and high (≥$120) premium plans reported better patient experience (+1.4 [95% CI, 0.7-2.1] and 2.2 [95% CI, 1.5-2.9] points) and received better clinical care (1.4 [95% CI, 0.3-2.5] to 3.3 [5% CI, 2.1-4.5] percentage points on most measures than those with $0 and low-premium plans. Quality differences within each premium level category were substantial; the within-premium category plan-level SDs were 6.5 points and 7.2 percentage points for patient experience and clinical quality, respectively. A plan at the 50th percentile of clinical quality and patient experience in the high premium category would fall in the 65th and 62nd percentile within the $0-premium category, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

This population-based cross-sectional study found that although quality of care and patient experience were slightly higher with higher-premium plans, quality varied widely within each premium category. High-quality care and patient experience were found in each price category. Thus, paying higher premiums is not necessary for higher quality care in Medicare Advantage plans. Greater engagement of enrollees and advocates with quality of care and patient experience information for Medicare Advantage plan selection is recommended.