Literature DB >> 27454826

Association of Reference Pricing for Diagnostic Laboratory Testing With Changes in Patient Choices, Prices, and Total Spending for Diagnostic Tests.

James C Robinson1, Christopher Whaley1, Timothy T Brown1.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Prices for laboratory and other clinical services vary widely. Employers and insurers increasingly are adopting "reference pricing" policies to create incentives for patients to select lower-priced facilities.
OBJECTIVE: To measure the association between implementation of reference pricing and patient choice of laboratory, test prices, patient out-of-pocket spending, and insurer spending. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted an observational study of changes in laboratory pricing and selection by employees of a large national grocery firm (n = 30 415) before and after the firm implemented a reference pricing policy for laboratory services and compared the findings with changes over the same period for policy holders of a large national insurer that did not implement reference pricing (n = 181 831). The grocery firm established a maximum payment limit at the 60th percentile of the distribution of prices for each laboratory test in each region. Employees were provided with data on prices at all laboratories through a mobile digital platform. Patients selecting a laboratory that charged more than the payment limit were required to pay the full difference themselves. A total of 2.13 million claims were analyzed for 285 types of in vitro diagnostic tests between 2010 and 2013. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patient choice of laboratory, price paid per test, patient out-of-pocket costs, and employer spending.
RESULTS: Compared with trends in prices paid by insurance policy holders not subject to reference pricing, and after adjusting for characteristics of tests and patients, implementation of reference pricing was associated with a 31.9% reduction (95% CI, 20.6%-41.6%) in average price paid per test by the third year of the program. In these 3 years, total spending on laboratory tests declined by $2.57 million (95% CI, $1.59-$3.35 million). Out-of-pocket costs by patients declined by $1.05 million (95% CI, $0.73-$1.37 million). Spending by the employer declined by $1.70 million (95% CI, $0.92-$2.48 million). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: When combined with access to price information, reference pricing was associated with patient choice of lower-cost laboratories and reductions in prices and payments by both employer and employees.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27454826     DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2492

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


  9 in total

1.  Editor's Spotlight/Take 5: What Does a Shoulder MRI Cost the Consumer?

Authors:  Paul A Manner
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-01-18       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Streamlining laboratory expenditures through direct to consumer testing and reference prices: first do not harm.

Authors:  Giuseppe Lippi; Mario Plebani
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-11

3.  Reference pricing may have limited use but is not a blanket solution for laboratory testing.

Authors:  Robert L Schmidt; Peter E Jensen
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-11

4.  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

5.  Finding Health Care Prices Online-How Difficult Is It to Be an Informed Health-Care Consumer?

Authors:  Allison Kratka; Charlene A Wong; Riley Herrmann; Kathryn Hong; Aleena Karediya; Iris Yang; Peter A Ubel
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 21.873

6.  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

7.  Out-Of-Network Spending Mostly Declined In Privately Insured Populations With A Few Notable Exceptions From 2008 To 2016.

Authors:  Zirui Song; William Johnson; Kevin Kennedy; Jean Fuglesten Biniek; Jacob Wallace
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 6.301

8.  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

9.  Association of 152 Biomarker Reference Intervals with All-Cause Mortality in Participants of a General United States Survey from 1999 to 2010.

Authors:  Nam Pho; Arjun K Manrai; John T Leppert; Glenn M Chertow; John P A Ioannidis; Chirag J Patel
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 8.327

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.