The Mandated Publication of Individual Hospital Charge Description Masters Does Not Permit the Estimation of Complex Procedure Charges

Publicly Disclosed Pricing for Common Upper-Extremity Procedures: An Analysis of Hospital Chargemasters

BACKGROUND

American hospitals are required to provide price transparency data (known as a chargemaster) for medical services, which is intended to allow consumers to accurately estimate the cost of medical services. Our purpose was to identify hospital compliance in publishing chargemaster documents and to assess the price information published for common upper-extremity services and procedures.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of publicly available chargemaster data from 122 hospitals, which included the top-20-ranked Honor Roll hospitals from US News and World Report and 2 top-ranked hospitals from each state. Chargemaster files were accessed for each hospital, and price information was recorded for 10 common upper-extremity procedures including radiographs, injections, and surgeries. Mean procedural prices were compared between academic and nonacademic hospitals.

RESULTS

Chargemaster files were able to be accessed for 107 (88%) of 122 institutions. Price estimates for imaging studies were more frequently reported (73%) than those of procedures (23%-41%). With 50 hospitals reporting a price estimate, carpal tunnel injection was the most frequently reported procedure, whereas trigger finger release was the least frequently reported (41% and 23%, respectively). Wide price ranges were noted, with mean charges for a total shoulder arthroplasty listed as US $51 723 (range, US $247-US $364 024). Mean prices between academic and nonacademic hospital systems were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

While most (88%) of the included hospitals have been compliant with publishing their price transparency files, price estimates for common upper-extremity procedures and imaging studies are inconsistently reported and, when present, demonstrate high levels of price variability between and within hospital systems.

Less Than One-third of Hospitals Provide Compliant Price Transparency Information for Total Joint Arthroplasty Procedures

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently implemented price transparency legislation. As total joint arthroplasty (TJA) procedures are widely used, expensive, and generally are predictable in terms of cost and expected outcomes, these procedures are a proxy for assessing how hospitals provide price transparency for their services as a whole. Furthermore, cost estimates for TJA procedures represent some of the most commonly sought-after price transparency information among the orthopaedic surgery patient population.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked: (1) Are hospitals compliant with federal rules mandating transparency in pricing for primary TJA? (2) Are hospitals providing these data in a user-friendly format? (3) Is there a difference in prices quoted based on Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes compared with Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) codes?

METHODS

Our cross-sectional retrospective analysis used the CMS's Hospital Compare database. This database includes information for 5326 Medicare hospitals nationally. We excluded children's, psychiatric, Veterans Affairs, and active military base hospitals as well as hospitals performing fewer than 100 TJAs annually. A total of 1719 hospitals remained after this selection process. Random sampling stratified across practice setting, hospital size, TJA volume, type, ownership, and Census region was performed to identify 400 facilities for our final analysis. Included hospitals were located predominately in urban areas (79% [317 of 400]) and were mostly medium-sized facilities (43% [171 of 400]). Most hospitals were classified as acute care (98% [392 of 400]) versus critical access. Three reviewers thoroughly searched each hospital website for a machine-readable file providing the following five datapoints: gross charges, payer-specific negotiated charges, deidentified minimum negotiated charges, deidentified maximum negotiated charges, and discounted cash prices. Hospitals that provided all five datapoints through a machine-readable file were considered compliant. Additionally, we considered hospitals with any gross price information pseudocompliant. The consumer-friendliness of the website was assessed based on the following criteria: (1) languages other than English were offered, (2) it took less than 15 minutes to locate pricing information, (3) a phone number or email address was provided for questions, and (4) there was a description of procedure in common terms. Pricing information was recorded and compared for CPT codes 27447 and 27130 and DRG codes 469 and 470. Data were sourced from December 1 through 20, 2021, to assess compliance in the first year since the legislation was implemented.

RESULTS

Only 32% (129 of 400) of the sampled hospital websites were compliant with all six requirements under the CMS rule for transparency in pricing. When segregating by individual procedures, 21% (84 of 400), 18% (72 of 400), 18% (71 of 400), and 19% (74 of 400) of hospitals provided CMS-compliant pricing information for CPT codes 27447 and 27130 and DRG codes 469 and 470, respectively. For each code, rates of pseudocompliance were 36% (143 of 400), 31% (125 of 400), 34% (135 of 400), and 50% (199 of 400) for the included codes, respectively. Most included hospitals provided at least some of their pricing data in a user-friendly format. Prices quoted using a DRG search were higher overall than prices quoted using a procedure-specific CPT code.

CONCLUSION

Although the CMS implemented a price transparency mandate at the beginning of 2021, our analysis demonstrated that most hospitals either do not provide TJA price estimates or are noncompliant when presenting related information. Specifically, approximately half of evaluated hospitals provided a gross charge for any TJA code, and less than one-third of these institutions were fully compliant with all CMS mandates for these procedures.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Given the potential influence compliance and price sharing may have on empowering patients' healthcare decisions and reducing healthcare expenditures, hospitals should use our analysis to identify where their compliance is lacking and to understand how to make their pricing information more readily available to their patients. In addition to ensuring that all six CMS mandates are met, this should include providing information in easy-to-understand formats and making related services identifiable across all levels of health literacy. Furthermore, we advocate for the use of CPT codes and layman terms when identifying provided services as well as a price estimator tool that allows for the download of a machine-readable file specific to the procedure of interest.

Price Transparency for Primary Hip & Knee Arthroplasty: An Overview of the Top 50 US News and World Report Orthopedic Hospitals

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has mandated all hospitals to publish the charges of 300 common procedures to provide price transparency. The aims of our study are to evaluate 50 top orthopedic hospitals to determine compliance with this mandate and to assess the ease of finding cost information for arthroplasty procedures.

METHODS

The websites of the top 50 US News and World Report (USNWR) orthopedic hospitals were searched to find publicly accessible procedural charges. Data included the number of clicks to locate pricing documents, number of files provided, and number of data rows pertaining to arthroplasty. Charge data was queried based on Diagnosis related group (DRG) codes (469, 470), Current Procedural Technology (CPT) codes (27130, 27477), and keyword searches ("arthroplasty", "total hip", and "total knee").

RESULTS

Forty-four (88%) of the top 50 USNWR Orthopedic institutions had publicly accessible files containing cost information. Thirty three of the 44 institutions provided results with DRG search while less than 10 institutions used CPT and keyword searches. There was an average of 226,190 (range 304-1,121,876) rows of data per file. Average charges varied depending on the use of DRG, CPT or keyword searches ($6,663-$117,072).

CONCLUSION

The majority of compliant hospitals published large data files requiring the use of DRG codes to find cost information with extreme variation in resultant charges provided. These findings underscore the lack of direct patient benefit afforded by the current mandate, as pricing determinations require expert knowledge in medical coding and have a high variability in the reported charges.

Compliance and Variability of Hospital Price Transparency in Total Knee and Hip Arthroplasty in the United States

INTRODUCTION

On January 1, 2019, in an effort to improve price transparency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) mandated that hospitals display chargemasters and pricing for diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) online. We examined the compliance of the 50 top orthopaedic hospitals, ranked by US News, with CMS's mandate and compared pricing.

METHODS

The chargemaster and pricing of DRG codes related to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) (469, 470, 461, 462, 466, 467, and 468) were evaluated in the top 50 orthopaedic hospitals in the United States. Spearman rank correlation coefficients (ρ) were used to evaluate the association between DRG 469, 470, and 467 prices with geographic practice cost index (GPCI) work and practice expense values.

RESULTS

Thirty-six of the 50 hospitals reported DRG pricing for THA and TKA. Of these hospitals, 15 had prices for all seven DRGs of interest; only 467, 469, and 470 were reported across all the 36 hospitals. Of the 14 hospitals without DRG information, 12 had nothing and two had unsatisfactory reporting. Prices for DRGs 469, 470, and 467 were moderately or weakly correlated with both GPCI work and GPCI practice expense. All correlation analyses were statistically significant (P < 0.05).

DISCUSSION

In summary, compliance with CMS's 2019 rule was poor overall. Fourteen of the 50 hospitals did not adequately report any DRG pricing, and only 15 of the hospitals were fully compliant with the mandate. In addition to poor compliance, the reported costs had variation not strongly accounted for by established geographic differences.