Literature DB >> 26348851

Association of Reference Payment for Colonoscopy With Consumer Choices, Insurer Spending, and Procedural Complications.

James C Robinson1, Timothy T Brown1, Christopher Whaley1, Emily Finlayson2.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Regulatory limits on consumer cost sharing permit wide variation in the prices charged for screening and diagnostic tests such as colonoscopy. Employers are experimenting with reference payment initiatives that offer full insurance coverage at low-priced facilities but require substantial cost sharing if patients select high-priced alternatives.
OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the effect of reference payment on facility choice, insurer spending, consumer cost sharing, and procedural complications for colonoscopy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) implemented reference payment in January 2012. We obtained data on 21 644 CalPERS enrollees who underwent colonoscopy in the 3 years prior to implementation and on 13 551 patients in the 2 years after implementation. Control group data were obtained on 258 616 Anthem Blue Cross enrollees who underwent colonoscopy and who were not subject to reference payment initiatives during this 5-year period. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Consumer choice of facility, price paid per procedure, total insurer spending, consumer cost sharing, and procedural complications. EXPOSURES: Choices, prices, and complications were compared for CalPERS and Anthem patients before and after implementation of reference payments, using difference-in-difference multivariable regressions to adjust for patient demographic characteristics and comorbidities, procedure indications, and geographic location.
RESULTS: Utilization of low-priced facilities for CalPERS members increased from 68.6% in 2009 to 90.5% in 2013. After adjusting for patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and other factors, the implementation of reference payment increased use of low-priced facilities by 17.6 percentage points (95% CI, 11.8 to 23.4; P < .001). The mean price paid for colonoscopy for the CalPERS population increased from $1587 (95% CI, $1555-$1618) in 2009 to $1716 (95% CI, $1678-$1753) in 2011 and then decreased to $1508 (95% CI, $1469-$1548) in 2013 for patients subject to reference payment. After adjustment for other relevant factors, reference payment was responsible for a 21.0% (95% CI, -26.0% to -15.6%, P < .001) reduction in the price. Reference payment was associated with a small but statistically insignificant decline in procedural complications, from 2.1% in 2009 to 2.0% in 2013 (P = .47). In the first 2 years after implementation, CalPERS saved $7.0 million (28%) on spending for the procedure. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Implementation of reference payment for colonoscopy was associated with reduced spending and no change in complications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26348851     DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.4588

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  8 in total

1.  If reference-based benefit designs work, why are they not widely adopted? Insurers and administrators not doing enough to address price variation.

Authors:  Dennis P Scanlon
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-03-29       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Fee-for-service payment is not the (main) problem.

Authors:  Bryan E Dowd; Miriam J Laugesen
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Association of Reference Pricing with Drug Selection and Spending.

Authors:  James C Robinson; Christopher M Whaley; Timothy T Brown
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2017-08-17       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Association of a national insurer's reference-based pricing program and choice of imaging facility, spending, and utilization.

Authors:  Anna D Sinaiko; Ateev Mehrotra
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-03-10       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Reference-Based Benefits for Colonoscopy and Arthroscopy: Large Differences in Patient Payments Across Procedures but Similar Behavioral Responses.

Authors:  Timothy T Brown; Chaoran Guo; Christopher Whaley
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2018-08-13       Impact factor: 3.929

Review 6.  Sedation for routine gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a review on efficacy, safety, efficiency, cost and satisfaction.

Authors:  Otto S Lin
Journal:  Intest Res       Date:  2017-10-23

7.  Employer-Led Strategies to Improve the Value of Health Spending: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Richard M Weinmeyer; Megan McHugh; Emma Coates; Sarah Bassett; Linda C O'Dwyer
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 2.306

8.  The moral hazard effects of consumer responses to targeted cost-sharing.

Authors:  Christopher M Whaley; Chaoran Guo; Timothy T Brown
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2017-10-12       Impact factor: 3.883

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.