Providing Responsible Health Care for Out-of-State Patients.

This Viewpoint discusses why the legality of calling patients located in another state has suddenly been called into question.

Engaging Medicare Beneficiaries in Coverage Choices.

This Viewpoint discusses the recently announced monthly Medicare Part B premium hike and the limited role beneficiaries play in decisions about their coverage, and proposes ways to engage Medicare beneficiaries in program decisions.

Maintaining Health Care Innovations After the Pandemic.

This Viewpoint discusses evaluating and perhaps extending the record of successful innovation arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pharmacy Benefit Managers and the Federal Trade Commission: A Relationship Gone Sour.

This Viewpoint provides a brief history of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), describes the ways in which PBMs have acquired influence in the prescription drug distribution system, and suggests possible scenarios surrounding the June 2022 decision by the Federal Trade Commission to launch an investigation into PBM business practices.

A Financial Case for a Medical-Legal Partnership: Reducing Lengths of Stay for Inpatient Care.

While Medical-Legal Partnerships (MLPs) have improved the health and well-being of the people they serve, most healthcare institutions will only invest in an MLP if they are convinced that doing so will improve its balance sheet. This article offers a detailed estimation of the cost savings that an MLP targeted toward the most acute legal needs would accrue to an academic medical center (AMC) in North Carolina.

Informed Consent as a Means of Acknowledging and Avoiding Financial Toxicity as Iatrogenic Harm.

Negative health consequences stemming from the financial burden of care on patients and their loved ones are documented as financial toxicity in the literature, and these consequences should be included in informed consent discussions during patient-clinician interactions. However, codes of medical ethics have yet to require obtaining consent to financial costs, even as the No Surprises Act, effective on January 1, 2022, requires some clinicians to facilitate informed financial consent prior to an out-of-network elective service as a means of avoiding arbitration. This article discusses how this requirement can be more broadly applied to informed consent for any intervention.

Are Patient Satisfaction Instruments Harming Both Patients and Physicians?

In this Viewpoint, Richman and Schulman argue that patient satisfaction surveys may not actually reflect clinical performance or assist efforts to improve patient experience and are not useful tools to measure physician performance.

Receipt of Out-of-State Telemedicine Visits Among Medicare Beneficiaries During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, states implemented temporary changes allowing physicians without a license in their state to provide care to their residents. There is an ongoing debate at both the federal and state levels on whether to change licensure rules permanently to facilitate out-of-state telemedicine use. Objective: To describe out-of-state telemedicine use during the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of telemedicine visits included all patients with traditional Medicare from January through June 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Telemedicine visits from January through June 2021 where the patient's home address and the physician's practice address were in different states. Results: In describing which patients and specialties were using out-of-state telemedicine, we focused on the period between January to June 2021. We chose this period because it was after the turmoil of the early pandemic, when vaccines became widely available and the health care system had stabilized, but before many of the temporary licensing regulations began to lapse by mid-2021. In the first half of 2021, there were 8 392 092 patients with a telemedicine visit and, of these, 422 547 (5.0%) had 1 or more out-of-state telemedicine visits. Those who lived in a county close to a state border (within 15 miles) accounted for 57.2% of all out-of-state telemedicine visits. Among the out-of-state visits in this time period, 64.3% were with a primary care or mental health clinician. For 62.6% of all out-of-state visits, a prior in-person visit occurred between the same patient and clinician between March 2019 and the visit. The demographics and conditions treated were similar for within-state and out-of-state telemedicine visits, with several notable exceptions. Among those with a telemedicine visit, people in rural communities were more likely to receive out-of-state telemedicine care (33.8% vs 21.0%), and there was high of out-of-state telemedicine use for cancer care (9.8% of all telemedicine visits for cancer care). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that licensure restrictions of out-of-state telemedicine would have had the largest effect on patients who lived near a state border, those in rural locales, and those who received primary care or mental health treatment.

Billing And Insurance-Related Administrative Costs: A Cross-National Analysis.

Billing and insurance-related costs are a significant source of wasteful health care spending in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations, but these administrative burdens vary across national systems. We executed a microlevel accounting of these costs in different national settings at six provider locations in five nations (Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Singapore) that supplements our prior study measuring the costs in the US. We found that billing and insurance-related costs for inpatient bills range from a low of $6 in Canada to a high of $215 in the US for an inpatient surgical bill (purchasing power parity adjusted). We created a taxonomy of billing and insurance-related activities (eligibility, coding, submission, and rework) that was applied to data from the six sites and allows cross-national comparisons. Higher costs in the US and Australia are attributed to high coding costs. Much of the savings achieved in some nations is attributable to assigning tasks to people in lower-skill job categories, although most of the savings are due to more efficient billing and insurance-related processes. Some nations also reduce these costs by offering financial counseling to patients before treatment. Our microlevel approach can identify specific cost drivers and reveal national billing features that reduce coding costs. It illustrates a valuable pathway for future research in understanding and mitigating administrative costs in health care.

Reducing administrative costs in US health care: Assessing single payer and its alternatives.

OBJECTIVE: Excess administrative costs in the US health care system are routinely referenced as a justification for comprehensive reform. While there is agreement that these costs are too high, there is little understanding of what generates administrative costs and what policy options might mitigate them. DATA SOURCES: Literature review and national utilization and expenditure data. STUDY DESIGN: We developed a simulation model of physician billing and insurance-related (BIR) costs to estimate how certain policy reforms would generate savings. Our model is based on structural elements of the payment process in the United States and considers each provider's number of health plan contracts, the number of features in each health plan, the clinical and nonclinical processes required to submit a bill for payment, and the compliance costs associated with medical billing. DATA EXTRACTION: For several types of visits, we estimated fixed and variable costs of the billing process. We used the model to estimate the BIR costs at a national level under a variety of policy scenarios, including variations of a single payer "Medicare-for-All" model that extends fee-for-service Medicare to the entire population and policy efforts to reduce administrative costs in a multi-payer model. We conducted sensitivity analyses of a wide variety of model parameters. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our model estimates that national BIR costs are reduced between 33% and 53% in Medicare-for-All style single-payer models and between 27% and 63% in various multi-payer models. Under a wide range of assumptions and sensitivity analyses, standardizing contracts generates larger savings with less variance than savings from single-payer strategies. CONCLUSION: Although moving toward a single-payer system will reduce BIR costs, certain reforms to payer-provider contracts could generate at least as many administrative cost savings without radically reforming the entire health system. BIR costs can be meaningfully reduced without abandoning a multi-payer system.