Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reduces Medicare payments to hospitals with high rates of hospital-acquired conditions (HACs) by 1% each year. It is not known how the savings accruing to CMS from such penalties compare to savings resulting from a reduction in HACs driven by this program. This study compares the reported savings to CMS from financial penalties levied under the HACRP with savings resulting from potential reductions in HACs. METHODS:Using a random sample of 20% of Medicare claims data (January 1, 2009-September 30, 2014), the research team evaluated the association between HACs and 90-day episode spending (adjusted to 2015 dollars), then estimated potential annual savings to CMS if there was a relative decrease in incidence of all HACs by 1%-20%. These savings were then compared to the actual collected HACRP penalties reported by CMS in 2015. RESULTS:All HACs were associated with significant increases in total 90-day episode spending, ranging from $3,183 for iatrogenic pneumothorax to $21,654 for postoperative hip fracture. The total estimated savings to Medicare from potential reduction in all HACs ranged from $2.2 million to $44 million per year, an amount much lower than the $361 million in penalties levied on hospitals per year for HACs. CONCLUSION:The penalties levied under the HACRP far exceed the potential cost savings accruing from a 1%-20% reduction in HACs that might result from hospitals' efforts in response to the program.

"Surprise" out-of-network bills have come under close scrutiny, and while ambulance transportation is known to be a large component of the problem, its impact is poorly understood. We measured the prevalence and financial impact of out-of-network billing in ground and air ambulance transportation. For members of a large national insurance plan in 2013-17, 71 percent of all ambulance rides involved potential surprise bills. For both ground and air ambulances, out-of-network charges were substantially greater than in-network prices, resulting in median potential surprise bills of $450 for ground transportation and $21,698 for air transportation. Though out-of-network air ambulance bills were larger, out-of-network ground ambulance bills were more common, with an aggregate impact of $129 million per year. Out-of-network air ambulance bills averaged $91 million per year, rising from $41 million in 2013 to $143 million in 2017. Federal proposals to limit surprise out-of-network billing should incorporate protections for patients undergoing ground or air ambulance transportation.

IMPORTANCE:Privately insured patients who receive care from in-network physicians may receive unexpected out-of-network bills ("surprise bills") from out-of-network clinicians they did not choose. In elective surgery, this can occur if patients choose in-network surgeons and hospitals but receive out-of-network bills from other involved clinicians. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate out-of-network billing across common elective operations performed with in-network primary surgeons and facilities. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:Retrospective analysis of claims data from a large US commercial insurer, representing 347 356 patients who had undergone 1 of 7 common elective operations (arthroscopic meniscal repair [116 749]; laparoscopic cholecystectomy [82 372]; hysterectomy [67 452]; total knee replacement [42 313]; breast lumpectomy [18 018]; colectomy [14 074]; coronary artery bypass graft surgery [6378]) by an in-network primary surgeon at an in-network facility between January 1, 2012, and September 30, 2017. Follow-up ended November 8, 2017. EXPOSURE:Patient, clinician, and insurance factors potentially related to out-of-network bills. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The primary outcome was the proportion of episodes with out-of-network bills. The secondary outcome was the estimated potential balance bill associated with out-of-network bills from each surgical procedure, calculated as total out-of-network charges less the typical in-network price for the same service. RESULTS:Among 347 356 patients (mean age, 48 [SD, 11] years; 66% women) who underwent surgery with in-network primary surgeons and facilities, 20.5% of episodes (95% CI, 19.4%-21.7%) had an out-of-network bill. In these episodes, the mean potential balance bill per episode was $2011 (95% CI, $1866-$2157) when present. Out-of-network bills were associated with surgical assistants in 37% of these episodes; when present, the mean potential balance bill was $3633 (95% CI, $3384-$3883). Out-of-network bills were associated with anesthesiologists in 37% of episodes; when present, the mean potential balance bill was $1219 (95% CI, $1049-$1388). Membership in health insurance exchange plans, compared with nonexchange plans, was associated with a significantly higher risk of out-of-network bills (27% vs 20%, respectively; risk difference, 6% [95% CI, 3.9%-8.9%]; P < .001). Surgical complications were associated with a significantly higher risk of out-of-network bills, compared with episodes with no complications (28% vs 20%, respectively; risk difference, 7% [95% CI, 5.8%-8.8%]; P < .001). Among 83 021 procedures performed at ambulatory surgery centers with in-network primary surgeons, 6.7% (95% CI, 5.8%-7.7%) included an out-of-network facility bill and 17.2% (95% CI, 15.7%-18.8%) included an out-of-network professional bill. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:In this retrospective analysis of commercially insured patients who had undergone elective surgery at in-network facilities with in-network primary surgeons, a substantial proportion of operations were associated with out-of-network bills.

BACKGROUND:In response to concerns about inadequate insurance coverage, bariatric surgery was included in the Affordable Care Act's essential health benefits program-requiring individual and small-group insurance plans in 23 states to cover bariatric surgery. We evaluated the impact of this policy on bariatric surgery utilization. METHODS:Multiple-group interrupted time series analyses of IBM MarketScan commercial claims data from 2009 to 2016. RESULTS:Bariatric surgery utilization increased in all states after ACA implementation, but this increase was no greater in states with a bariatric surgery essential health benefit. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest that the essential health benefits program may have been too narrow in scope to meaningfully increase bariatric surgery utilization at the population level.

OBJECTIVE:(1) To identify gaps in providers knowledge on opioid medication and dosing, patient-specific characteristics that require alterations in dosing, and patient monitoring and treatment adjustments. (2) To evaluate an educational intervention aimed at minimizing these deficits. DESIGN/METHODS:Observational prospective study. Providers took an anonymous paired pre-and posteducation knowledge assessment before and after participating in a 75-minute educational session. Results before and after the educational session were compared. SETTING/METHODS:Surgical providers included nurse practitioners, physician assistants, preinterns, and general surgery residents across 4 quaternary care hospitals in Boston. Participants There were 194 participants and 174 completed both pre- and posteducation knowledge assessments. RESULTS:Average scores on the educational assessment increased from 59% before the course to 68% after the session. Posteducation, providers reported increased comfort in prescribing and 95% stated that the curriculum would impact their practice. CONCLUSIONS:Surgical providers at multiple hospitals have significant gaps in knowledge for optimal prescribing and management of opioid prescriptions. A 75-minute opioid education session increased prescriber knowledge as well as comfort in prescribing. This multicenter study demonstrates how an educational initiative can be implemented broadly and result in decreased knowledge gaps.