Understanding Surprise Out-of-Network Billing in Hand and Upper Extremity Care

Surprise Billing Is Common in Total Joint Arthroplasty and Negatively Impacts Patient Satisfaction

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA) may receive unexpected medical bills. Such "surprise" bills may cause financial hardship for patients, which prompted policymakers to pass the No Surprises Act. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of surprise bills for patients undergoing TJA and the effect of surprise billing on patient satisfaction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent a primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at a large multi-state institution. Patients completed a questionnaire regarding the incidence of surprise bills after their surgery, details of those bills, and how the bills affected their surgical satisfaction. Independent predictors for receiving a surprise bill were assessed through a multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

Twelve percent of participants received at least one surprise bill after their TJA. The most common surprise bill came from the surgical facility (48%), followed by anesthesia (36%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified older age and Black race to be independent predictors of surprise billing. Furthermore, surgery occurring after the No Surprises Act bill enforcement on January 1, 2022, was found to increase a patient's likelihood of receiving a surprise bill (P=.039, effect size=0.18). Patients who received a surprise bill reported being significantly less satisfied with their surgery (P=.002, effect size=0.45). Forty-nine percent of patients with a surprise bill felt their billing negatively affected their surgical satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Surprise billing continues to occur after TJA and can negatively affect patient satisfaction. Although surgeons may be unable to limit the amount of bills patients receive postoperatively, increased communication and education regarding the perioperative billing process may prove to be beneficial for both patient satisfaction and the physician-patient relationship. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(5):283-288.].

Access to Reconstructive Hand Surgery in the United States-Investigating the Obstacles: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Mechanisms that affect access to surgical hand care appear to be complex and multifaceted. This scoping review aims to investigate the available literature describing such mechanisms and provide direction for future investigation.

METHODS

The methodological framework outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews was used to guide this review. In November 2021, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched. A narrative summary of the characteristics and key findings of each paper is used to present the data to facilitate the integration of diverse evidence.

RESULTS

Of 471 initial studies, 49 were included in our final analysis. Of these, 33% were cohort studies; 27% reported that underinsured patients are less likely to get an appointment with a hand specialist or to receive treatment. Overburdened emergency departments accounted for the second-most reported reason (16%) for diminished access to surgical hand care. Elective procedure financial incentives, poor emergency surgical hand coverage, distance to treatment, race, and policy were also notably reported across the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

This study describes the vast mechanisms that hinder access to surgical hand care and highlights their complexity. Possible solutions and policy changes that may help improve access have been described.

Definition, Practice, Regulations, and Effects of Balance Billing: A Scoping Review

Background

Additional billing is commonly and legally practiced in some countries for patients covered by health insurance. However, knowledge and understanding of the additional billings are limited. This study reviews evidence on additional billing practices including definition, scope of practice, regulations and their effects on insured patients.

Methods

A systematic search of the full-text papers that provided the details of balance billing for health services, written in English, and published between 2000 and 2021 was carried out in Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science. Articles were screened independently by at least 2 reviewers for eligibility. Thematic analysis was applied.

Results

In total, 94 studies were selected for the final analysis. Most of the included articles (83%) reported findings from the United States (US). Numerous terms of additional billings were used across countries such as balance billing, surprise billing, extra billing, supplements and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending. The range of services incurred these additional bills also varied across countries, insurance plans, and healthcare facilities; the frequently reported were emergency services, surgeries, and specialist consultation. There were a few positive though more studies reported negative effects of the substantial additional bills which undermined universal health coverage (UHC) goals by causing financial hardship and reducing access to care. A range of government measures had been applied to mitigate these adverse effects, but some difficulties still exist.

Conclusion

Additional billings varied in terms of terminology, definitions, practices, profiles, regulations, and outcomes. There were a set of policy tools aimed to control substantial billing to insured patients despite some limitations and challenges. Governments should apply multiple policy measures to improve financial risk protection to the insured population.

Cost communication in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: Public perceptions in the United States

BACKGROUND

There is a need to better understand the financial toxicity of surgery on patients. Recent data demonstrated that plastic surgeons seldom discuss out-of-pocket costs with patients. Not much is known regarding the public perceptions of out-of-pocket cost communication in reconstructive and cosmetic breast surgery.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was administered to adult women in the United States from November 2021 to December 2021 using Amazon Mechanical Turk. Perceptions regarding cost communication in plastic surgery were gathered. Incomplete responses were excluded. Multivariable models were used to identify predictors of responses.

RESULTS

There were 512 complete responses. Respondents had a mean age of 37.4 years. The majority strongly agreed or agreed that plastic surgeons should discuss out-of-pocket costs with patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction (85%), plastic surgeons should know the impact of surgery on patients' financial well-being (78%), and discussing costs was the most important aspect of the appointment (70%). Respondents who were unsure of their insurance status had lower odds of strongly agreeing or agreeing that surgeons should discuss out-of-pocket costs for autologous reconstruction (OR 0.12, CI 0.02-0.58, p = 0.01) and cosmetic breast augmentation (OR 0.14, CI 0.03-0.65, p = 0.01). Privately insured respondents had greater odds of strongly agreeing or agreeing to both, respectively (OR 2.21, CI 1.32-3.82, p < 0.01; OR 1.94, CI 1.17-3.31, p = 0.01) CONCLUSION: Many laywomen support the cost communication in plastic surgery and believe that plastic surgeons should know the impact of surgery on the patients' financial well-being, with variability among the sociodemographic groups. Plastic surgeons should strongly consider discussing costs with patients undergoing breast surgery.

Rapid Review of "No Surprise" Medical Billing in the United States: Stakeholder Perceptions and Challenges

Surprise medical bills received after care delivery in both emergency and non-emergency situations for out-of-network (OON) or other contractual health plan regulations adds additional stress upon the care guarantor, most often the patient. The passing and continued implementation of the federal No Surprises Act (NSA) and related state-level legislation continues to influence the processes of care delivery in the United States. This rapid review evaluated the literature specific to surprise medical billing in the United States since the passing of the No Surprise Act, guided by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocol. A total of 33 articles were reviewed by the research team and the results demonstrate industry stakeholder perceptions related to two primary industry themes (constructs) surrounding surprise billing: healthcare stakeholder perspectives and medical claim dispute (arbitration) processes. Further investigation identified sub-constructs for each: the practice of balance-billing patients for OON care and healthcare provider, and facility equitable reimbursement challenges (primary theme 1), and arbitration observations and challenges surrounding (a) the NSA medical dispute process, (b) state-level arbitration processes and perceptions, and (c) use of the Medicare fee schedule as a benchmark for arbitration decisions (primary theme 2). The results indicate the need for formative policy improvement initiatives to address the generation of surprise billing.

Surprise Out-of-Network Bills for Hand and Upper Extremity Trauma Patients

PURPOSE

Patients may receive surprise out-of-network bills even when they present to in-network facilities. Surprise bills are common following emergency care. We sought to characterize and determine risk factors for surprise billing in hand and upper extremity trauma patients in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We used IBM MarketScan data to evaluate hand and upper extremity trauma patients who received care in the ED from 2010 to 2017. Our primary outcome was the surprise billing incidence, defined as encounters in in-network EDs with out-of-network claims. We used descriptive and bivariate analyses to characterize surprise billing and used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate independent factors associated with surprise billing.

RESULTS

Of 710,974 ED encounters, 97,667 (14%) involved surprise billing. The incidence decreased from 26% in 2010 to 11% in 2017. Mean coinsurance payments were higher for surprise billing encounters and had double the growth from 2010 to 2017 compared to those without surprise billing. Receiving care from different provider types-especially therapists, radiologists, and pathologists, as well as hand surgeons-was associated with significantly higher odds of surprise billing. Transfer to another facility was not significantly associated with surprise billing.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the incidence of surprise billing decreased, more than 10% of patients treated in an ED for hand trauma remain at risk. Coinsurance for surprise billing encounters increased by twice as much as encounters without surprise billing. Patients requiring services from therapists, radiologists, pathologists, and hand surgeons were at greater risk for surprise bills. The federal No Surprises Act, passed in 2020, targets surprise billing and may help address some of these issues.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Many hand and upper extremity patients requiring ED care receive surprise bills from various sources that result in higher out-of-pocket costs.

Prevalence, Burden, and Sources of Out-of-Network Billing in Elective Hand Surgery: A National Claims Database Analysis

PURPOSE

Surprise out-of-network (OON) bills can represent a considerable cost burden on patients. However, OON billing remains underexplored in elective, outpatient surgery procedures, which have greater latitude for patient choice. We aimed to answer the following questions: (1) What is the prevalence and magnitude of OON charges in hand surgery? (2) What are the sources of OON charges? and (3) What factors are associated with OON charges?

METHODS

We analyzed patient-level data from the Clinformatics Data Mart database. We identified patients undergoing carpal tunnel release, trigger finger release, wrist ganglion removal, de Quervain release, limited palmar fasciectomy, or thumb carpometacarpal arthroplasty at in-network facilities with an in-network primary surgeon. The primary outcome was the proportion of surgical episodes with at least 1 OON charge. Secondary outcomes included the magnitude of potential balance bills (portion of OON bill exclusive of the standardized payment and expected patient cost-sharing), sources of OON charges, and factors associated with OON charges.

RESULTS

Of 112,211 elective hand surgery episodes, 8% (9,158) had at least 1 OON charge. OON charges ranged from $1,154 (95% confidence interval, $1,018-$1,289) for wrist ganglion removal to $3,162 (95% confidence interval, $2,902-$3,423) for thumb carpometacarpal arthroplasty. In episodes with OON charges, the major sources of OON charges were anesthesiologists (75% of episodes), durable medical equipment (10% of episodes), and pathologists (9% of episodes). Site of service, geographic region, and health exchange-purchased plans were highly associated with OON charges.

CONCLUSIONS

Out-of-network billing can represent a substantial cost burden to patients and should be considered in perioperative decision-making in elective hand surgery.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Understanding the potential costs related to OON services during a surgical episode, and its drivers, allows surgeons to consider detailed cost discussions during perioperative decision making.

Healthcare Utilization with Drug Acquisition and Expenses at the National Health Insurance Fund in Sudan

Background: Understanding the pattern of care use can provide valuable information for reform interventions. This study investigates the pattern of healthcare utilization and its association with drug acquisition patterns and expenses in the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) of Al Jazira State in Sudan. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted at NHIF primary healthcare centers of Al Jazirah state in Sudan. Results: A total of 768 beneficiaries were interviewed, of which 63.2% reported using out-of-network physician care, while 36.8% receive care from the NHIF physician network only. More than half (60.8%) of NHIF-interviewed clients reported a heavy burden of medication costs. The pattern of physician utilization was significantly associated with the number and source of regular drugs, the burden of out-of-pocket payment, and monthly out-of-pocket expenditures on medications, (p < 0.001). The regression analysis revealed that gender, marital status, number of chronic diseases, and number of regular drugs were the significant predictors of the pattern of physician care utilization; these factors explained nearly 36% of the variance in respondents’ pattern of physician care utilization. Conclusions: An impressive proportion of out-of-network care was found in Al Jazirah State in Sudan. The NHIF stakeholders should consider medication subsidy as a potential strategy for decreasing patient leakage to out-of-network services.