Skip to main content
Home

Main navigation

  • Centers & Programs
    • Centers
      • Center for Energy Studies
      • Center for Health and Biosciences
      • Center for the Middle East
      • Center for Public Finance
      • Center for the U.S. and Mexico
      • McNair Center
      Center for Energy Studies
      Providing new insights on the role of economics, policy and regulation in the performance and evolution of energy markets.
      More Details
      The globe at night, lights in populated areas illuminated
      Center for Health and Biosciences
      Advancing data-based policies that promote health and well-being in the U.S. and around the world.
      More Details
      Female healthcare worker lifts finger to press digital buttons featuring topical iconography
      Edward P. Djerejian Center for the Middle East
      Developing pragmatic policy approaches to the region’s enduring political, economic and societal concerns.
      More Details
      Topographic map of Middle East
      Center for Public Finance
      Delivering research and analysis on the effects of major U.S. fiscal policies.
      More Details
      Stack of coins with mathematical figure overlays
      Center for the U.S. and Mexico
      Strengthening the binational relationship by addressing major concerns on both sides of the border.
      More Details
      Textured flags of America and Mexico
      McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth
      Providing actionable policy analysis and recommendations that aim to expand the economy through private enterprise.
      More Details
      Professionals gather around a large table with laptops, printed documents and coffee cups for a business meeting
    • Programs
      • China Studies
      • Drug Policy
      • International Economics
      • Presidential Elections
      • Religion & Public Policy
      • Science & Technology Policy
      • Space Policy
      China Studies
      Analyzing the influence of the transnational circulation of people, technologies, commodities and ideas in China.
      Read More
      Person walks alongside large banner with Chinese characters
      Drug Policy
      Pursuing research and open debate to develop pragmatic drug policies based on common sense and driven by human rights interests.
      Read More
      Marijuana
      International Economics
      Studying timely issues in global economic policy as well as developmental policy in foreign countries.
      Read More
      International paper currencies stacked together, showing range of colors and styles
      Presidential Elections
      Offering nonpartisan analysis of elections to better understand the changing dynamics of presidential campaigns.
      Read More
      An assortment of campaign buttons from a variety of US elections and political pursuits are displayed in a collage
      Religion and Public Policy
      Exploring how religion and cultural factors interact with public policy issues.
      Read More
      A worn path stretches between rows of olive trees
      Science and Technology Policy
      Addressing a broad range of policy issues that affect scientists and their research.
      Read More
      A scientist picks up test tubes from a rack.
      Space Policy
      Focusing on U.S. space policy and the future of space travel.
      Read More
      The International Space Station (ISS) orbits the Earth at sunrise
  • Events
    Pakistan Flooding
    Edward P. Djerejian Center for the Middle East | Center for Energy Studies
    Thu, Jan. 26, 2023 | 5:30 pm - 7:30 pm
    Geopolitical Turmoil and Climate Crisis in Pakistan: A Developing Country’s Perspective on Energy and Water Security See Details
    China flag with binary code overlay texture
    China Studies
    Mon, Jan. 30, 2023 | 5:30 pm - 7:30 pm
    How China is Winning the Battle for Digital Sovereignty See Details
  • Experts
    • Biomedical Research
    • Child Health
    • China
    • Conflict Resolution in the Middle East
    • Domestic Health Policy
    • Drug Policy
    • Energy
    • Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth
    • Global Health
    • Health and Biosciences
    • Human Rights and Refugees
    • International Economics
    • Islam and Politics
    • Latin American Energy
    • Middle East
    • Political Economy of the Arab Gulf
    • Presidential Elections
    • Public Finance
    • Religion and Public Policy
    • Science and Technology
    • Space Policy
    • Texas Politics
    • U.S. and Iran
    • U.S. and Mexico
    • See All Experts
    • Experts in the News
  • Support
    • Join the Roundtable
      Join the Roundtable
      Learn more about the Baker Institute’s premier membership forum, which offers unique opportunities to engage with fellows and policy-minded peers.
      Read More
      RT
    • Join the Roundtable Young Professionals
      Join the RT Young Professionals
      If you're interested in major political and public policy issues, and want the opportunity to network with industry leaders and your peers, then our young professionals organization is for you.
      Read More
      RYP Baker
    • Major Gifts
      Major Gifts
      Major gifts provide the funds necessary for the Baker Institute to explore new areas of study and research, and expand current programs.
      Read More
      Wallace S. Wilson meeting with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair
    • Endowments
      Endowments
      Endowment gifts provide the Baker Institute with permanent resources that support research programs, fellows and scholars.
      Read More
      Pictured from left are William Martin, Katharine Neill Harris, Ambassador Edward Djerejian, Alfred C. Glassell, III, and Pam Lindberg
    • Planned Giving
      Planned Giving

      Plan a gift that will ensure lasting, meaningful support for policy programs important to you.

       

      Read More
      meeting
    • Corporate Support
      Corporate Support
      Corporations can become involved with the institute in a number of ways and see the benefit from the research conducted by our fellows and scholars.
      Read More
      Wide shot of the Doré Commons during a Shell Distinguished Lecture Series event featuring Wim Thomas
  • About
    • People
      People
      Learn more about the Baker Institute's leadership and get contact information for the administrative staff.
      Read More
      Secretary James A. Baker, III, stands with a portion of the Berlin Wall, outside of Baker Hall
    • Student Opportunities
      Student Opportunities
      Through the internships on campus and beyond, Rice students can explore careers in public policy, or simply become better informed about important issues of the day.
      Read More
      Amb. Edward P. Djerejian speaks with students outside Baker Hall
    • Annual Report
    • Blog
    • Contact
      Contact Us
      Complete a form for event, media or other inquiries, and get directions and parking information for the Baker Institute.
      Read More
      The front of Baker Hall, from across the plaza, with fountain in foreground
  • Contact
  • Research
    • Economics & Finance
      Economics & Finance
      Read More
    • Energy
      Latest Energy Research
      Summary on Latest Energy Research
      Read More
    • Foreign Policy
      Foreign Policy
      Read More
    • Domestic Policy
      Domestic Policy
      Read More
    • Health & Science
      Health & Science
      Read More
    • All Publications
  • Facebook
  • Youtube
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Economics & Finance
  • Energy
  • Foreign Policy
  • Domestic Policy
  • Health & Science
  • All Publications
Center for Health and Biosciences | Domestic Health Policy Analysis | Report

Comparing Prices and Price Transparency Among Top-Ranked Hospitals and Close Competitors

May 12, 2022 | Vivian Ho, Alan Beltran Lara, David Ruiz, Peter Cram, M.D., Marah Short
A stethoscope on American paper currency.

Table of Contents

Author(s)

Vivian Ho
James A. Baker III Institute Chair in Health Economics
Alan Beltran Lara
2021-2022 EMERGE Intern, Center for Health and Biosciences
David Ruiz
EMERGE Intern, Center for Health and Biosciences
Peter Cram, M.D.
Professor and Chair, Internal Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch
Marah Short
Scholar in Health Economics

Share this Publication

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Linkedin
  • Download PDF
  • Print This Publication
  • Cite This Publication

    Ho, Vivian, Alan Beltran Lara, David Ruiz, Peter Cram, and Marah Short. 2022. Comparing Prices and Price Transparency among Top-Ranked Hospitals and Close Competitors.
    Baker Institute Report 05.12.22. Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, Houston, Texas.

    Copy Citation

Abstract

A regulation from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) required that, starting January 1, 2021, all U.S. hospitals publicly display the cash price as well as the minimum and maximum negotiated charge for 300 “shoppable services.” During July and August 2021 we evaluated compliance with these requirements among the U.S. News & World Report’s 20 honor roll hospitals in 2020-21 and 41 high-quality hospitals in the same cities. We compared prices for three imaging studies (brain MRI, abdominal ultrasound, and chest x-ray) and three hospital services (basic metabolic panel, electrocardiogram [ECG], and lower joint replacement). Within each of the studied procedures, at most 7 of the 14 cities with top-20 hospitals had minimum negotiated prices that were reported by at least one top-20 hospital and a competitor that was comparable in quality.  The top-20 hospital was the highest priced for 5 of 7 cities for ECGs. Yet a top-20 hospital was the highest priced facility in only 1 of 5 cities for both MRIs and joint replacements. For a handful of cities and procedures, the top-20 hospital was priced much lower than its competitor(s), or there was wide price disparity between top-20 hospitals in the same city. Top-20 hospitals were more likely to report cash prices, but they were orders of magnitude higher than their minimum negotiated price. Many highly respected U.S. hospitals are not in compliance with new price transparency legislation, even though the prices of reporting top-20 hospitals are not systematically higher than competitors with comparable quality. Full price transparency by all hospitals would aid patients and payers in identifying price outliers and choosing the most cost-effective providers.

Background

On January 1, 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented
Federal Rule (FR) 65524, which requires that all U.S. hospitals publicly display prices for 300 circumscribed shoppable services (70 services required of all hospitals, 230 selected by each hospital), as well as a downloadable and machine-readable dataset containing all services provided.1 The legislation stipulates that for each service, hospitals must post five separate prices, including their discounted cash price and minimum negotiated charge. The new legislation has garnered significant attention from researchers and journalists, but little peer-reviewed research. Several recently published commentaries in high-impact medical journals have described the potential benefits of and barriers to price transparency and its significant short- term impact on prices.2 Blog posts and newspaper investigations have reported limited compliance by hospitals with the new regulation.3 Some previously published early evaluation of reporting compliance may have been disadvantaged by hospitals employing special coding to hide prices from internet search engines.4 These methods of concealing the posted price were explicitly banned by CMS on March 23, 2021, prior to our evaluation.5

The objective of our study was to evaluate whether the 20 high-profile U.S. hospitals listed in the 2020-21 U.S. News & World Report honor roll and hospitals with similar quality ratings in their city have displayed their prices for six common shoppable services on their public websites, and to describe the variation in prices displayed.

Methods

Data was collected from all hospitals ranked as the top 20 in the 2020-21 U.S. News & World Report honor roll and all of the 41 surrounding hospitals (acute care facilities
within 25 miles) with Medicare Hospital Compare overall star ratings equal to or higher
than the top 20 hospital(s) in their region, for a total of 61 hospitals. Data collection occurred during July and August of 2021.

First, we selected three imaging tests (brain magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], abdominal ultrasound, and chest x-ray with two views) and three clinical services (major lower joint replacement, basic metabolic panel, and electrocardiogram) from the 70 shoppable services required by CMS. We identified each service using the current procedural terminology (CPT) code or diagnosis related group (DRG) that CMS provided. Of note, the DRGs for total lower joint replacement do not specify a particular joint. Therefore, we decided a priori to search for the price of a hip replacement if a hospital listed prices for both hip and knee replacements.

Second, we determined whether the hospital displayed prices for these services on their public websites. We searched each hospital’s website as well as related sites from the associated health system when applicable. We then collected information for each hospital and service with respect to whether: (a) a discounted cash price was available and if so, what that price was; (b) the minimum and maximum negotiated
price was available and (c) if so, what those prices were.

Results were summarized using univariate methods (percentages, means, and range). Mean cash prices and minimum negotiated prices for each hospital were graphed by procedure type and region. We focus analyses on the minimum negotiated price, because the insurer with the largest market share is likely to have negotiated this price, which would apply to the largest number of patients.

Results

Among the 20 U.S. News honor roll hospitals, one hospital did not report any price data
for any procedure. Four additional hospitals did not report price data (cash, minimum, or maximum) for one individual service. Only seven out of the top 20 hospitals (35%)
posted the cash, minimum, and maximum negotiated prices for all six services. Thirteen of the top 20 hospitals (65%) reported cash prices for all six services.

Eighteen out of the 61 high-quality hospitals in our sample reported complete price data (cash, minimum, and maximum) for all six services. Among these 61 hospitals, cash prices were reported by 80% or more hospitals for each service, except for joint replacement (64%). The minimum and maximum negotiated prices were reported by only about half of the hospitals regardless of the procedures. The negotiated prices were often found only in the downloadable data files.

Figure 1 graphs the negotiated minimum price for each hospital by service and geographic region. In 14 cities with top-20 hospitals, seven cities at most had at least one top-20 hospital as well as one or more high-quality competing hospital(s) reporting prices for 1 of the 6 services we studied. In three cities, no hospitals reported minimum negotiated prices.

Figure 1 — Minimum Negotiated Prices by Service and Region

Figure 1 — Minimum Negotiated Prices by Service and Region
Sources  Hospital websites, Medicare.gov, and author calculations.

 

For cities with minimum negotiated prices from both a top-20 and at least one high-quality competing hospital, Table 1 reports the number of cities by service when the top-20 hospital is the highest priced facility. The top-20 hospital was the highest priced facility in 5 of 7 cities for ECGs, 3 out of 6 cities for chest x-rays, and 3 out of 7 cities for abdominal ultrasounds. Yet a top-20 hospital was the highest priced facility in only 1 of 6 cities for brain MRIs ($396 versus $364 in Rochester, MN) and 1 of 5 cities for joint replacements ($12,546 versus $11,818 and $10,148 in Ann Arbor, MI).

For a handful of cities and procedures, the top-20 hospital reported a minimum negotiated price that was much lower than its competitor(s) ($363 versus $904 for a brain MRI in St. Louis; $13,403 versus $16,625 for joint replacement in Phoenix, AZ). New
York and Chicago each had two top-20 hospitals that posted prices for most of the six services we studied. In these cases, theminimum negotiated price between these two hospitals in the same city frequently differed by a substantial amount. For example, the price for a brain MRI was $463 in one top-20 hospital and $2,901 in another top-20 hospital in New York. In Chicago, the minimum negotiated price for joint replacement was $4,613 in one top-20 hospital and $16,869 in the other.

Table 1 — Cities Where Top 20 Hospital Has Highest Minimum Negotiated Price by Service

Table 1 — Cities Where Top 20 Hospital Has Highest Minimum Negotiated Price by Service
Sources  U.S. News & World Report, hospital websites, Medicare.gov, and author calculations.

 

Table 2 — Comparison of Cash and Minimum Negotiated Price within Top 20 Hospitals by Service

Table 2 — Comparison of Cash and Minimum Negotiated Price within Top 20 Hospitals by Service
Sources  Hospital websites and author calculations.

 

Table 2 lists the number of top-20 hospitals that reported both a cash price and a minimum negotiated price by procedure. Only about half of the top-20 hospitals reported both prices for the six procedures we examined. In each case, the cash price was orders of magnitude greater than the minimum negotiated price. The greatest differential was for the basic metabolic panel, for which the mean ratio of the cash price to the minimum negotiated price was 10.8. For example, the cash price for the basic
metabolic panel at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix was $256, while the minimum negotiated price was only $11.

The narrowest differential between the cash price and minimum negotiated price was for joint replacement, although only seven hospitals reported both prices. The mean ratio of the cash price to the minimum negotiated price was still sizable, at 4.7. For example, the cash price for a joint replacement at New York Presbyterian Hospital was $82,485, while the minimum negotiated price was $16,704.

Figure 2 presents the cash prices reported by hospitals for each of the six procedures. With many more hospitals reporting cash prices than minimum negotiated prices, more price variability appears in this figure compared to Figure 1. For example, no hospitals in Cleveland reported a minimum negotiated price for a chest X-ray. However, four Cleveland hospitals reported cash prices for a chest X-ray ($130, $130, $177, and 434). Table 3 reveals that almost all of the cities with a top-20 hospital had both a top-20 hospital and a high-quality competing hospital reporting cash prices for the six services we examined. In these cities, the top-20 hospital had the highest cash price roughly 50% of the time.

Figure 2 — Cash Price by Service and Region
Sources  Hospital websites, Medicare.gov, and author calculations.

 

 

Table 3 — Cities Where Top 20 Hospital Has Highest Cash Price by Service

Table 3 — Cities Where Top 20 Hospital Has Highest Cash Price by Service
Sources  Hospital websites and author calculations.

 

Discussion

We found poor compliance with a 2021 CMS requirement that hospitals publicly display
their prices for shoppable services among the top 20 U.S. hospitals as ranked by U.S. News & World Report and 41 regional competitors with comparable CMS quality ratings. Our research demonstrated that 57% of these hospitals posted their cash prices, 36% posted their minimum negotiated prices, and only 30% posted both their cash and minimum and maximum negotiated prices.

In seven or fewer cities where minimum negotiated prices were posted for at least one top-20 hospital and a competitor for a particular service, there were multiple incidents where the top-20 did not have the highest price. In fact, for the two most expensive procedures (brain MRI and joint replacement), there was only one city where the top-20 hospital posted the highest minimum negotiated price. Nevertheless, we also found a handful of incidents where there was a dramatic difference in price between two top-20 hospitals in the same city (e.g., $4,613 joint replacement in one top 20 hospital and $16,869 in the other top 20 hospital in Chicago). Although we limited our analysis to high-quality hospitals, these results suggest that there is not always a strong relationship between price and quality for care in this facilities subgroup, and that there are potentially more opportunities for patients and insurance plan sponsors to find cost savings and high-quality care if price transparency improves.

Hospitals were more likely to report their cash prices for the six services we examined. However, in cases where we could compare the cash price to the minimum negotiated price for particular hospitals, the cash price was orders of magnitude higher. This
pricing pattern was noted in a recent Wall Street Journal article,6 which mentions that some hospitals discount these cash prices for uninsured patients, but financial aid policies can be poorly promoted. Our results suggest that the highest quality hospitals are charging cash prices that would discourage financially vulnerable patients from seeking care at these facilities.

Our study results align with the limited available peer-reviewed research that has ascertained high variation in prices and low adherence to the CMS Price Transparency
regulation7—findings that have also been documented by various press outlets.8 There are several potential explanations for the range in prices we observed, which have been discussed in previous literature.9 It could be that the legislation allows for too much leeway in the calculation of prices or that there is fundamental confusion within hospitals over how to ascertain the true “cost” of delivering a service and converting
costs into prices for patients.10 While this may limit the ability of individual patients
to shop for the exact price of a given service, the pricing information could be a valuable tool for employers in negotiating better prices for their employees, and in particular when the negotiated prices are clearly posted, insurers could encourage members of their plans to seek out lower cost care within highly rated providers through health insurance benefit design or to negotiate prices with hospitals.11 Although not discussed specifically in our results, the maximum negotiated price is often higher than the cash price (see Appendix for full table of reported prices), offering potential savings for consumers in those plans who are willing to research and proactively discuss pricing and billing with the hospital.

In the press, hospitals have cited the burden of collecting and posting the data and their belief that the disclosures would not be useful for patients as justification for not following the regulations.12 In its final rule and response to public comments, CMS acknowledges the burden to hospitals and systems of compiling and posting the
data, but states that it is outweighed by the benefit to consumers. Hospitals have also cited concerns about a competitive disadvantage in negotiations—particularly when their nearby competitors have not posted prices;13 a 2021 research study suggests that higher fines may be necessary to surpass any financial pain resulting from disclosure of negotiated rates.14 CMS’s Outpatient Prospective Payment System rule for 2022 increased the potential fines for nondisclosure from a maximum of $109,500 during 2021 to more than $2 million per year in 2022.15 Concerns about competitive disadvantage are precisely why the regulation should be enforced impartially to encourage all to report their prices and create a more level ground for negotiations.
Yet, according to reporting on January 7, 2022, CMS issued over 300 warnings but zero fines in 2021.16

It is understandable that there may have been delays in implementation for which concessions may have been made given that the reporting deadline date of January 1, 2021, coincided with the emergence of COVID-19 in the United States, but the rule was finalized almost a year before that in November 2019. Hospitals have now had multiple years to prepare.

Our study is limited by the fact that it only covers six shoppable services at 61 hospitals; a larger scale analysis is certainly warranted, particularly once enforcement of the higher penalties begins. Also, our data was collected over a limited period and the availability of that data may change over time. Finally, the results of price comparisons are limited by the lack of compliance with reporting regulations. For example, a lack of reported data may cause prices to appear similar within a city—especially if only a single system is reporting, or prices may appear to be outliers if similarly priced hospitals have not reported their data.

In conclusion, many highly respected U.S. hospitals are not in compliance with new price transparency legislation, and there are some dramatic differences in prices among those that are reporting them publicly. Employers should use their influence as the largest consumer of health insurance to assert the need for hospital compliance to both hospitals and regulators. But even now, with limited information, there is substantial room for cost savings while maintaining quality if insurers can encourage patients to seek out care at lower cost, highly rated providers.

Endnotes

1. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, “Medicare and Medicaid Programs: CY 2020 Hospital Outpatient PPS Policy Changes and Payment Rates and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System Policy Changes and Payment Rates. Price Transparency Requirements for Hospitals to Make Standard Charges Public,” 2020, http://www.regulations.gov/.

2. Sherry Glied, “Price Transparency—Promise and Peril,” JAMA 325, no. 15 (April 20, 2021): 1496–97, https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMA.2021.4640; Joseph Antos and Peter Cram, “Making Hospital Price Transparency Work for Health Care Consumers,” JAMA Health Forum 2, no. 4 (April 1, 2021): e210301–e210301, https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMAHEALTHFORUM.2021.0301; Jeffrey T. Kullgren and A. Mark Fendrick, “The Price Will Be Right—How to Help Patients and Providers Benefit from the New CMS Transparency Rule,” JAMA Health Forum 2, no. 2 (February 1, 2021): e210102–e210102, https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMAHEALTHFORUM.2021.0102; Anna D. Sinaiko, “What Is the Value of Market-Wide Health Care Price Transparency?,” JAMA 322, no. 15 (2019): 1449–50, https://doi.
org/10.1001/jama.2019.11578.

3. Morgan A. Henderson and Morgane C. Mouslim, “Low Compliance from Big Hospitals On CMS’s Hospital Price Transparency Rule,” Health Affairs Forefront, March 16, 2021,
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20210311.899634/full/; Melanie Evans, Anna Wilde Mathews, and Tom McGinty, “Hospitals Still Not Fully Complying
with Federal Price-Disclosure Rules,” Wall Street Journal, December 30, 2021,
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hospital-price-public-biden-11640882507; Allie Reed, “Medicare Holds Off on Hospital Price Disclosure Fines for Now,” Bloomberg Law,
August 16, 2021, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/medicare-holds-off-on-hospital-price-disclosure-fines-for-now.

4. Antos and Cram, “Making Hospital Price Transparency Work,” JAMA; Tom McGinty, Anna Wilde Mathews, and Melanie Evans, “Hospitals Hide Pricing Data From Search Results,” Wall Street Journal, March 22, 2021, https://www.wsj.com/articles/hospitals-hide-pricing-data-from-search-results-11616405402; Suhas Gondi et al., “Early Hospital Compliance with Federal Requirements for Price Transparency,” JAMA Internal Medicine (American Medical Association, October 1, 2021), https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.2531.

5. Anna Wilde Mathews and Tom McGinty, “Coding to Hide Health Prices from Web Searches Is Barred by Regulators,” Wall Street Journal, April 14, 2021, https://www.
wsj.com/articles/coding-to-hide-health-prices-from-web-searches-is-barred-by-
regulators-11618405825.

6. Melanie Evans, Anna Wilde Mathews, and Tom McGinty, “Hospitals Often Charge Uninsured People the Highest Prices, New Data Show—WSJ,” Wall Street Journal, July
6, 2021, https://www.wsj.com/articles/hospitals-often-charge-uninsured-people-the-highest-prices-new-data-show-11625584448.

7. Antos and Cram, “Making Hospital Price Transparency Work,” JAMA; Gondi et al.,“Early Hospital Compliance,” JAMA; Roy Xiao et al., “Payer-Negotiated Prices in the Diagnosis and Management of Thyroid Cancer in 2021,” JAMA 326, no. 2 (July 13, 2021): 184–85, https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMA.2021.8535.

8. Evans, Mathews, and McGinty, “Hospitals Still Not Fully Complying,” Wall Street Journal; Reed, “Medicare Holds Off on Hospital Price Disclosure Fines for Now”; Sarah Kliff and Josh Katz, “Why Hospitals and Health Insurers Didn’t Want You to See Their Prices,"  New York Times, August 22, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/08/22/upshot/hospital-prices.html.

9. Antos and Cram, “Making Hospital Price Transparency Work,” JAMA.

10. David W Young, “The Folly of Using RCCs and RVUs for Intermediate Product Costing,” Healthcare Financial Management 61, no. 4 (2007), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17427470/; Michal Horný, Paul R. Shafer, and Stacie B. Dusetzina, “Concordance of Disclosed Hospital Prices With Total Reimbursements for Hospital-Based Care Among Commercially Insured Patients in the U.S.,” JAMA Network Open 4, no. 12 (December 1, 2021): e2137390–e2137390, https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMANETWORKOPEN.2021.37390; David Lazarus, “Leaked Scripps Records Reveal Huge Mark-Ups for Hospital Care,” Los Angeles Times, December 10, 2021, https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-12-10/column-healthcare-billing-markups.

11. Sinaiko, “What Is the Value?” JAMA.

12. Evans, Mathews, and McGinty, “Hospitals Still Not Fully Complying,” Wall Street Journal.

13. Ibid.

14. Gondi et al., “Early Hospital Compliance,” JAMA.

15. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, “CY 2022 Medicare Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System Final Rule
(CMS-1753FC) | CMS,” 2021, https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/cy-2022-medicare-hospital-outpatient-prospective-payment-system-and-ambulatory-surgical-center-0.

16. Dave Muoio, “CMS Issued over 300 Warnings, but No Fines, to Hospitals Falling
Short on Price Transparency Last Year," Fierce Healthcare, January 7, 2022, https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/cms-has-issued-over-300-warnings-but-no-fines-to-hospitals-falling-short-price.

Appendix available in PDF on left-hand sidebar.

 

 

This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

© 2022 Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy
https://doi.org/10.25613/0VMT-KW04
  • Print This Publication
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Email
    • Linkedin

Related Research

Kidney imaging
Center for Health and Biosciences | Journal

Fifty Years of a National Program for the Treatment of Kidney Failure

Read More
Solider sitting in folding chair
Center for Health and Biosciences | Domestic Health Policy Analysis | Newsletter

Should Health Care Providers Ask Their Regular Patients About Their Sexual Health?

Read More
  • Facebook
  • Youtube
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Donate Now
  • Media Inquiries
  • Membership
  • About the Institute
  • Rice.edu
Contact Us

6100 Main Street
Baker Hall MS-40, Suite 120
Houston, TX 77005

Email: bipp@rice.edu
Phone: 713-348-4683
Fax: 713-348-5993

Baker Institute Newsletter

The email newsletter of Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy provides a snapshot of institute news, research and upcoming events.

Sign Up

  • © Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy
  • Web Accessibility
  • Privacy Policy