Assessment of Out-of-Network Billing for Privately Insured Patients Receiving Care in In-Network Hospitals.

IMPORTANCE: Although surprise medical bills are receiving considerable attention from lawmakers and the news media, to date there has been little systematic study of the incidence and financial consequences of out-of-network billing. OBJECTIVE: To examine out-of-network billing among privately insured patients with an inpatient admission or emergency department (ED) visit at in-network hospitals. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective analysis using data from the Clinformatics Data Mart database (Optum), which includes health insurance claims for individuals from all 50 US states receiving private health insurance from a large commercial insurer was conducted of all inpatient admissions (n = 5 457 981) and ED visits (n = 13 579 006) at in-network hospitals between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016. Data were collected and analyzed in March 2019. EXPOSURES: Receipt of a bill for care from at least 1 out-of-network physician or medical transport service associated with patient admission or ED visit. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The incidence of out-of-network billing and the potential amount of patients' financial liability associated with out-of-network bills from the admission or visit. RESULTS: Of 5 457 981 inpatient admissions and 13 579 006 ED admissions between 2010 and 2016, the percentage of ED visits with an out-of-network bill increased from 32.3% to 42.8% (P < .001) during the study period, and the mean (SD) potential financial responsibility for these bills increased from $220 ($420) to $628 ($865) (P < .001; all dollar values in 2018 US$). Similarly, the percentage of inpatient admissions with an out-of-network bill increased from 26.3% to 42.0% (P < .001), and the mean (SD) potential financial responsibility increased from $804 ($2456) to $2040 ($4967) (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Out-of-network billing appears to have become common for privately insured patients even when they seek treatment at in-network hospitals. The mean amounts billed appear to be sufficiently large that they may create financial strain for a substantial proportion of patients.

Anesthesia Care Team Composition and Surgical Outcomes.

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: In the United States, anesthesia care can be provided by an anesthesia care team consisting of nonphysician providers (nurse anesthetists and anesthesiologist assistants) working under the supervision of a physician anesthesiologist. Nurse anesthetists may practice nationwide, whereas anesthesiologist assistants are restricted to 16 states. To inform policies concerning the expanded use of anesthesiologist assistants, the authors examined whether the specific anesthesia care team composition (physician anesthesiologist plus nurse anesthetist or anesthesiologist assistant) was associated with differences in perioperative outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of national claims data for 443,098 publicly insured elderly (ages 65 to 89 yr) patients who underwent inpatient surgery between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2011. The differences in inpatient mortality, spending, and length of stay between cases where an anesthesiologist supervised an anesthesiologist assistant compared to cases where an anesthesiologist supervised a nurse anesthetist were estimated. The approach used a quasirandomization technique known as instrumental variables to reduce confounding. RESULTS: The adjusted mortality for care teams with anesthesiologist assistants was 1.6% (95% CI, 1.4 to 1.8) versus 1.7% for care teams with nurse anesthetists (95% CI, 1.7 to 1.7; difference -0.08; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.1; P = 0.47). Compared to care teams with nurse anesthetists, care teams with anesthesiologist assistants were associated with non-statistically significant decreases in length of stay (-0.009 days; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.1; P = 0.89) and medical spending (-$56; 95% CI, -334 to 223; P = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: The specific composition of the anesthesia care team was not associated with any significant differences in mortality, length of stay, or inpatient spending.

Association of Early Physical Therapy With Long-term Opioid Use Among Opioid-Naive Patients With Musculoskeletal Pain.

Importance: Nonpharmacologic methods of reducing the risk of new chronic opioid use among patients with musculoskeletal pain are important given the burden of the opioid epidemic in the United States. Objective: To determine the association between early physical therapy and subsequent opioid use in patients with new musculoskeletal pain diagnosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis of health care insurance claims data between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2015, included privately insured patients who presented with musculoskeletal pain to an outpatient physician office or an emergency department at various US facilities from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2014. The sample comprised 88 985 opioid-naive patients aged 18 to 64 years with a new diagnosis of musculoskeletal shoulder, neck, knee, or low back pain. The data set (obtained from the IBM MarketScan Commercial database) included person-level International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision or Tenth Revision diagnosis codes, Current Procedural Terminology codes, and date of service as well as pharmaceutical information (National Drug Code, generic name, dose, and number of days supplied). Early physical therapy was defined as at least 1 session received within 90 days of the index date, the earliest date a relevant diagnosis was provided. Data analysis was conducted from March 1, 2018, to May 18, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Opioid use between 91 and 365 days after the index date. Results: Of the 88 985 patients included, 51 351 (57.7%) were male and 37 634 (42.3%) were female with a mean (SD) age of 46 (11.0) years. Among these patients, 26 096 (29.3%) received early physical therapy. After adjusting for potential confounders, early physical therapy was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of any opioid use between 91 and 365 days after the index date for patients with shoulder pain (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.95; P = .003), neck pain (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99; P = .03), knee pain (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.77-0.91; P < .001), and low back pain (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.98; P = .004). For patients who did use opioids, early physical therapy was associated with an approximately 10% statistically significant reduction in the amount of opioid use, measured in oral morphine milligram equivalents, for shoulder pain (-9.7%; 95% CI, -18.5% to -0.8%; P = .03), knee pain (-10.3%; 95% CI, -17.8% to -2.7%; P = .007), and low back pain (-5.1%; 95% CI, -10.2% to 0.0%; P = .046), but not for neck pain (-3.8%; 95% CI, -10.8% to 3.3%; P = .30). Conclusions and Relevance: Early physical therapy appears to be associated with subsequent reductions in longer-term opioid use and lower-intensity opioid use for all of the musculoskeletal pain regions examined.