Back

The Accuracy of Price Transparency Files at Top-Rated US Hospitals

Triana, A. J.; Van Horn, R. L.; Alford-Holloway, M.; Quintana, J. A.; Laffer, A. B.; Van Horn, R. L.

2024-11-20 health policy
10.1101/2024.11.19.24317568 medRxiv
Show abstract

Recent U.S. policies require hospitals and health insurers to post payer-specific negotiated prices for services. Few studies, if any, have thoroughly investigated the accuracy of these payer-specific prices for individual hospitals. Our aim was to evaluate the concordance of prices using three datasets: 1) hospital price transparency, 2) payer price transparency data, and 3) Electronic Remittance Advice (ERA) claims data, reflecting actual payments. Evaluating transthoracic echocardiograms at 22 top-rated hospitals, we found high variability in prices and low concordance between datasets, as less than 30% of claim payments had a concordant price in the price transparency datasets. Deriving accurate price estimates for patients requires precise matching of the insurance plan, place of service, and fee type, all of which should be included in standardized reporting. This process highlights the complexity of insurance contracting, and it is not surprising that there is some disagreement in prices. Regardless, we are hopeful that highlighting variation and complexity in prices is a step towards a better system of healthcare payments in the United States.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.