Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34398193›Full record

ArticleJAMA internal medicine2021

Association of Surprise-Billing Legislation with Prices Paid to In-Network and Out-of-Network Anesthesiologists in California, Florida, and New York: An Economic Analysis.

Ambar La Forgia, Amelia M Bond, Robert Tyler Braun, Klaus Kjaer, Manyao Zhang, Lawrence P Casalino

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ambar La ForgiaDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Amelia M BondDivision of Health Policy and Economics, Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Robert Tyler BraunDivision of Health Policy and Economics, Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Klaus KjaerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Manyao ZhangDivision of Health Policy and Economics, Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Lawrence P CasalinoDivision of Health Policy and Economics, Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York.
Cornell University · USColumbia University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Several states have passed surprise-billing legislation to protect patients from unanticipated out-of-network medical bills, yet little is known about how state laws influence out-of-network prices and whether spillovers exist to in-network prices. Objective: To identify any changes in prices paid to out-of-network anesthesiologists at in-network facilities and to in-network anesthesiologists before and after states passed surprise-billing legislation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective economic analysis used difference-in-differences methods to compare price changes before and after the passage of legislation in California, Florida, and New York, which passed comprehensive surprise-billing legislation between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2017, to 45 states that did not. Commercial claims data from the Health Care Cost Institute were used to identify prices paid to anesthesiologists in hospital outpatient departments and ambulatory surgery centers. The final analytic sample comprised 2 713 913 anesthesia claims across the 3 treated states and the 45 control states. Exposures: Temporal and state-level variation in exposure to surprise-billing legislation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The unit price (allowed amounts standardized per unit of service) paid to out-of-network anesthesiologists at in-network facilities and to in-network anesthesiologists. Results: This retrospective economic analysis of 2 713 913 anesthesia claims found that after surprise-billing laws were passed in 3 states, the unit price paid to out-of-network anesthesiologists at in-network facilities decreased significantly in 2 of them: California, -$12.71 (95% CI, -$25.70 to -$0.27; P = .05) and Florida, -$35.67 (95% CI, -$46.27 to -$25.07; P < .001). In New York, a decline in the overall out-of-network price was not statistically significant (-$7.91; 95% CI, -$17.48 to -$1.68; P = .10); however, by the fourth quarter of 2017, the decline was -$41.28 (95% CI, -$70.24 to -$12.33; P = .01). In-network prices decreased in California by -$10.68 (95% CI, -$12.70 to -$8.66; P < .001); in Florida, -$3.18 (95% CI, -$5.17 to -$1.19; P = .002); and in New York, -$8.05 (95% CI, -$11.46 to -$4.64; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This retrospective study found that prices paid to in-network and out-of-network anesthesiologists in hospital outpatient departments and ambulatory surgery centers decreased after the introduction of surprise-billing legislation, providing early insights into how prices may change under the federal No Surprises Act and in states that have recently passed their own legislation.

Indexed as

Insurance CoverageInsurance, HealthAnesthesiologistsCaliforniaDelivery of Health CareFloridaHealth Care CostsHumansInsurance Claim ReviewMedicareNew YorkUnited States

Identifiers

PMID34398193
PMCPMC8369382
OpenAlexW3193286828

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.