Literature DB >> 24019363

Private insurers' payments for routine physician office visits vary substantially across the United States.

Laurence Baker, M Kate Bundorf, Anne Royalty.   

Abstract

Anecdotal reports suggest that substantial variation exists in private insurers' payments for physician services, but systematic evidence is lacking. Using a retrospective analysis of insurance claims for routine office visits, consultations, and preventive visits from more than forty million physician claims in 2007, we examined variations in private payments to physicians and the extent to which variation is explained by patients' and physicians' characteristics and by geographic region. We found much variation in payments for these routine evaluation and management services. Physicians at the high end of the payment distribution were generally paid more than twice what physicians at the low end were paid for the same service. Little variation was explained by patients' age or sex, physicians' specialty, place of service, whether the physician was a "network provider," or type of plan, although about one-third of the variation was associated with the geographic area of the practice. Interventions that promote more price-consciousness on the part of patients could help reduce health care spending, but more data on the specific causes of price variation are needed to determine appropriate policy responses.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Business Of Health; Financing Health Care; Health Spending; Physicians; Variations

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24019363     DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0309

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)        ISSN: 0278-2715            Impact factor:   6.301


  9 in total

1.  The Relationship between Commercial Health Care Prices and Medicare Spending and Utilization.

Authors:  John A Romley; Sarah Axeen; Darius N Lakdawalla; Michael E Chernew; Jay Bhattacharya; Dana P Goldman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Physician Reimbursement in Medicare Advantage Compared With Traditional Medicare and Commercial Health Insurance.

Authors:  Erin Trish; Paul Ginsburg; Laura Gascue; Geoffrey Joyce
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 21.873

3.  Evaluating the effect of prior authorizations in patients with complex dermatologic conditions.

Authors:  Olivia S Jew; Joyce Okawa; John S Barbieri; Joanne McCaffrey; Elizabeth Hayward; Victoria P Werth
Journal:  J Am Acad Dermatol       Date:  2020-07-02       Impact factor: 11.527

4.  Regional Anesthesia and Readmission Rates After Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Debbie Chi; Edward R Mariano; Stavros G Memtsoudis; Laurence C Baker; Eric C Sun
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 5.108

5.  Incidence of and Risk Factors for Chronic Opioid Use Among Opioid-Naive Patients in the Postoperative Period.

Authors:  Eric C Sun; Beth D Darnall; Laurence C Baker; Sean Mackey
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 44.409

6.  Association between concurrent use of prescription opioids and benzodiazepines and overdose: retrospective analysis.

Authors:  Eric C Sun; Anjali Dixit; Keith Humphreys; Beth D Darnall; Laurence C Baker; Sean Mackey
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2017-03-14

7.  Discovering healthcare provider behavior patterns through the lens of Medicare excess charge.

Authors:  Sagnika Sen; Amit V Deokar
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  Paying patients to use lower-priced providers.

Authors:  Christopher Whaley; Neeraj Sood; Michael Chernew; Leanne Metcalfe; Ateev Mehrotra
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-08-09       Impact factor: 3.734

9.  Association of Early Physical Therapy With Long-term Opioid Use Among Opioid-Naive Patients With Musculoskeletal Pain.

Authors:  Eric Sun; Jasmin Moshfegh; Chris A Rishel; Chad E Cook; Adam P Goode; Steven Z George
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2018-12-07
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.