Transparency, Accessibility, and Variability of US Hospital Price Data | Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure.  Chargemaster Price Identification and Variation for Shoppable Items Across the 100 Largest US Hospitals
Chargemaster Price Identification and Variation for Shoppable Items Across the 100 Largest US Hospitals

Number of hospitals with matching and nonmatching prices for 25 shoppable items between 2 nonmedical reviewers. CT indicates computed tomography; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.

Table.  Factors Associated With Hospital Compliance to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Price Transparency Rule
Factors Associated With Hospital Compliance to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Price Transparency Rule
1.
Papanicolas  I, Woskie  LR, Jha  AK.  Health care spending in the United States and other high-income countries.   JAMA. 2018;319(10):1024-1039. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.1150PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Emanuel  E, Tanden  N, Altman  S,  et al.  A systemic approach to containing health care spending.   N Engl J Med. 2012;367(10):949-954. doi:10.1056/NEJMsb1205901PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Sinaiko  AD.  What is the value of market-wide health care price transparency?   JAMA. 2019. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11578PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Wu  SJ, Sylwestrzak  G, Shah  C, DeVries  A.  Price transparency for MRIs increased use of less costly providers and triggered provider competition.   Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(8):1391-1398. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0168PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 10 Steps to making public standard charges for shoppable services. Accessed April 6, 2021. https://www.cms.gov/files/document/steps-making-public-standard-charges-shoppable-services.pdf
6.
Desai  S, Hatfield  LA, Hicks  AL, Chernew  ME, Mehrotra  A.  Association between availability of a price transparency tool and outpatient spending.   JAMA. 2016;315(17):1874-1881. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.4288PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Views 2,861
    Citations 0
    Research Letter
    Health Policy
    May 14, 2021

    Transparency, Accessibility, and Variability of US Hospital Price Data

    Author Affiliations
    • 1University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas
    • 2Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
    • 3William Carey College of Osteopathic Medicine, Hattiesburg, Mississippi
    • 4Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas
    • 5Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas
    JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(5):e2110109. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.10109
    Introduction

    The United States spends a greater proportion of its gross domestic product on health care than any other nation, which is partly due to the excessive price of goods and services.1 Price transparency may empower consumers to seek lower-cost care and lead high-cost health care professionals and systems to decrease prices.2-4 The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) ruling CMS-1694-F, effective on January 1, 2019, mandated that hospital chargemasters be publicly available in a machine-readable file. Herein, we assessed the compliance of hospitals with this CMS ruling 18 months after its effective date.

    Methods

    This cross-sectional study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline. Per the Common Rule, institutional review board approval was not sought because this study is not human participant research. Hospital characteristics were obtained from the CMS website. US hospitals were eligible for inclusion if an institution website was identified. For chargemasters that could not be identified from the institution website, a Google search was performed using the name of the hospital and the terms chargemaster, charge description master, charge list, price list, standard price, or standard charges. To assess the accuracy of a single reviewer assessing chargemaster prevalence, 200 hospitals were reviewed by 2 reviewers (M.A. and E.H.) independently, with 92% agreement (Cohen κ = 0.84), indicating very high concordance. Two undergraduates served as proxies for layperson internet users and reviewed 25 chargemaster items, including common medications and mandatory shoppable services, as defined by CMS.5 Data abstraction was performed between June 30 and November 20, 2020. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors associated with hospital compliance to the CMS ruling. Statistical significance was set at P < .05, and all hypothesis tests were 2-tailed. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 16 (StataCorp).

    Results

    Among the 5288 US hospitals associated with a website, most were located in urban settings (2954 [55.9%]), had fewer than 100 beds (2701 [51.1%]), and were classified as acute care facilities (3255 [61.6%]) (Table). A total of 2723 hospitals (51.5%) did not have an online chargemaster in a machine-readable format, including 305 hospitals (5.8%) with broken links or incorrectly linked files and 138 hospitals (2.6%) that only provided an online cost estimator. The median (interquartile range) number of clicks needed to reach the chargemaster from the institution website homepage was 3 (2-8).

    In univariable and multivariable regression analyses, below average patient experience (vs at or above average patient experience) and private nonprofit ownership (vs local government ownership) were associated with greater compliance (Table). In contrast, psychiatric hospitals (vs acute care hospitals) and religious ownership (vs local government ownership) were associated with lesser compliance (Table).

    To assess chargemaster usability, 2 nonmedical reviewers assessed 25 shoppable items in the chargemasters of the 100 largest hospitals by bed number. Across all items, 330 prices (13.2%) were identified by both reviewers, and prices were more frequently identified for medications and laboratory tests than for imaging. Agreement in abstracted prices ranged from 0% to 89% (Figure). Among 22 hospitals with chargemasters including Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, 370 of 551 prices (67.2%) across all 25 items were identified by CPT codes. However, only 21 of 57 prices (36.8%) abstracted by either nonmedical reviewer was concordant with pricing identified using CPT codes.

    Discussion

    Our study found that most US hospitals remained noncompliant with the CMS-1694-F ruling, and compliance was associated with patient ratings, hospital type, and ownership. Even when publicly accessible, chargemasters were frequently buried within websites and difficult to use accurately. This work calls into question the effectiveness of CMS rulings to promote price transparency and highlights the challenges of creating effective price transparency tools for consumers. Additional data, including negotiated rates mandated in the final rule on price transparency (CMS-1717-F2), may improve the interpretability of hospital prices, but that rule does not address improving access and usability of hospital pricing data.6 One limitation of this study is that hospital pricing data may not reflect actual charges or costs.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: March 23, 2021.

    Published: May 14, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.10109

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Haque W et al. JAMA Network Open.

    Corresponding Author: David Hsiehchen, MD, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 2201 Inwood Rd, Dallas, TX 75390 (gbtwnow@gmail.com).

    Author Contributions: Dr Hsiehchen had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: W. Haque, Ahmadzada, Allahrakha, Hsiehchen.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

    Drafting of the manuscript: All authors.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: W. Haque, Ahmadzada, Hsiehchen.

    Statistical analysis: W. Haque, Allahrakha, E. Haque, Hsiehchen.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: W. Haque, Ahmadzada, Allahrakha, Hsiehchen.

    Supervision: Hsiehchen.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

    References
    1.
    Papanicolas  I, Woskie  LR, Jha  AK.  Health care spending in the United States and other high-income countries.   JAMA. 2018;319(10):1024-1039. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.1150PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    Emanuel  E, Tanden  N, Altman  S,  et al.  A systemic approach to containing health care spending.   N Engl J Med. 2012;367(10):949-954. doi:10.1056/NEJMsb1205901PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Sinaiko  AD.  What is the value of market-wide health care price transparency?   JAMA. 2019. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11578PubMedGoogle Scholar
    4.
    Wu  SJ, Sylwestrzak  G, Shah  C, DeVries  A.  Price transparency for MRIs increased use of less costly providers and triggered provider competition.   Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(8):1391-1398. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0168PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 10 Steps to making public standard charges for shoppable services. Accessed April 6, 2021. https://www.cms.gov/files/document/steps-making-public-standard-charges-shoppable-services.pdf
    6.
    Desai  S, Hatfield  LA, Hicks  AL, Chernew  ME, Mehrotra  A.  Association between availability of a price transparency tool and outpatient spending.   JAMA. 2016;315(17):1874-1881. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.4288PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×