Filtering by
- All Subjects: healthcare
- Creators: College of Health Solutions
- Creators: Department of Supply Chain Management
Data Sources: I use the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2000 to 2011. The NIS is a 20% sample of all inpatient claims. The Manhattan Institute supplied data on the availability of health savings accounts in each state. State PTR implementation dates were gathered by Hans Christensen, Eric Floyd, and Mark Maffett of University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business by contacting the health department, hospital association, or website controller in each state.
Study Design: The NIS data was collapsed by procedure, hospital, and year providing averages for the dependent variable, Cost, and a host of covariates. Cost is a product of Total Charges within the NIS and the hospital’s Cost to Charge ratio. A new binary variable, PTR, was defined as ‘0’ if the year was strictly less than the disclosure website’s implementation date, ‘1’ for afterwards, and missing for the year of implementation. Then, using multivariate OLS regression with fixed effect modeling, the change in cost from before to after the year of implementation is estimated.
Principal Findings: The analysis estimates the effect of PTR to decrease the average cost per procedure by 7%. Specifications identify within state, within hospital, and within procedure variation, and reports that 78% of the cost decrease is due to within-hospital, within-procedure price discounts. An additional model includes the interaction of PTR with the prevalence of health savings accounts (hereafter, HSAs) and procedure electivity. The results show that PTR lowers costs by an additional 3 percent with each additional 10 percentage point increase in the availability of HSAs. In contrast, the cost reductions from PTR were much smaller for procedures more frequently coded as elective.
Conclusions: The study concludes price transparency regulations can lead to a decrease in a procedure’s costs on average, primarily through price discounts and slightly through lower cost procedures, but not due to patients moving to cheaper hospitals. This implies that hospitals are taking initiative and lowering prices as the competition’s prices become publically available suggesting that hospitals – not patients – are the biggest users of price transparency websites. Hospitals are also finding some ways to provide cheaper alternatives to more expensive procedures. State regulators should evaluate if a better metric other than charge prices, such as expected out-of-pocket payments, would evoke greater patient participation. Furthermore, states with higher prevalence of HSAs experience greater effects of PTR as expected since patients with HSAs have greater incentives to lower their costs. Patients should expect a shift towards plans that offer these types of savings accounts since they’ve shown to have a reduction of health costs on average per procedure in states with higher prevalence of HSAs.
This study examines patient care in the SHOW free clinic in Phoenix, Arizona, which serves adults experiencing homelessness. This study asks two questions: First, do clinicians in Phoenix’s SHOW free clinic discuss with patients how to pay for and where to access follow-up services and medications? Second, how do the backgrounds of patients, measured by scales based on the Gelberg-Anderson behavioral model for vulnerable populations, correlate with patient outcomes, including number of unmet needs in clinic, patient satisfaction with care, and patient perceived health status? To answer these questions, structured surveys were administered to SHOW clinic patients at the end of their visits. Results were analyzed using Pearson’s correlations and odds ratios. 21 patients completed the survey over four weeks in February-March 2017. We did not identify any statistically significant correlations between predisposing factors such as severity/duration of homelessness, mental health history, ethnicity, or LGBTQ status and quality of care outcomes. Twenty nine percent of surveyed patients reported having one or more unmet needs following their SHOW clinic visit suggesting an important area for future research. The results from this study indicate that measuring unmet needs is a feasible alternative to patient satisfaction surveys for assessing quality of care in student-run free clinics for homeless populations.
utritional intake recommendations on the educational pamphlet to give patients a starting guideline and better understanding how to help this condition. Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and coronary artery disease are also common conditions treated by healthcare professionals. There are currently several medications on the market to help manage these conditions that range in price and have many side effects. Nutrition and exercise are two factors that can further contribute to the management of type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and coronary artery disease, but they can also help prevent and delay their onset. Nutrition and physical activity education along with examples of certain foods that can aid in reaching nutritional goals are outlined in the educational pamphlet to give patients a visual of what is in the academic paper.
Healthcare is delivered in many ways across the world. Most countries use one of the four healthcare models, but the United States uses parts of the four models. This leads to issues for patients as they may not know what their insurance plans cover. Providers also have issues with health insurance in getting coverage for their patients. With both patients and providers having issues with insurances, insurance companies have not taken an action to help alleviate some of the issues that everyone faces. Providers are also faced with issues of burnout as they have a lot to do, and not enough time or energy to complete everything. This effects the quality of healthcare that is delivered to their patients as well as when a person can see a provider as there are not enough doctors and nurses to cover the case load all of the time. All in all, providers, insurance companies, and patients need to work together to help fix some of the issues with healthcare to be able to move towards a better healthcare model for all.