Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36515792›Full record

ReviewHealth economics review2022

The impact of hospital price and quality transparency tools on healthcare spending: a systematic review.

Jinyang Chen, Marisa Miraldo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health economics review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Price Transparency and Patient Empowerment.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A Surgeon's Field Guide to Value-Based Specialty Care.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Understanding the Wide-Reaching Impact of Healthcare Merger and Acquisition Activity.International journal of health policy and management · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jinyang ChenSchool of Public Administration and Policy, Renmin University of China, No.59 Zhongguan Cun Avenue, Beijing, 100872, China. jinyang.chen@ruc.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2994-3470
Marisa MiraldoCentre for Health Economics and Policy Innovation, Business School, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

China Scholarship Council 202206360124Renmin University of China 2022035
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobal spending on health was continuing to rise over the past 20 years. To reduce the growth rates, alleviate information asymmetry, and improve the efficiency of healthcare markets, global health systems have initiated price and quality transparency tools in the hospital industry in the last two decades.

objectiveThe objective of this review is to synthesize whether, to what extent, and how hospital price and quality transparency tools affected 1) the price of healthcare procedures and services, 2) the payments of consumers, and 3) the premium of health insurance plans bonding with hospital networks.

methodsA literature search of EMBASE, Web of Science, Econlit, Scopus, Pubmed, CINAHL, and PsychINFO was conducted, from inception to Oct 31, 2021. Reference lists and tracked citations of retrieved articles were hand-searched. Study characteristics were extracted, and included studies were scored through a risk of bias assessment framework. This systematic review was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO with registration No. CRD42022319070.

resultsOf 2157 records identified, 18 studies met the inclusion criteria. Near 40 percent of studies focused on hospital quality transparency tools, and more than 90 percent of studies were from the US. Hospital price transparency reduced the price of laboratory and imaging tests except for office-visit services. Hospital quality transparency declined the level or growth rates of healthcare spending, while it adversely and significantly raised the price of healthcare services and consumers' payment in higher-ranked or rated facilities, which was referred to as the reputation premium in the healthcare industry. Hospital quality transparency not only leveraged private insurers bonding with a higher-rated hospital network to increase premiums, but also induced their anticipated pricing behaviors.

conclusionHospital price and quality transparency was not effective as expected. Future research should explore the understudied consequences of hospital quality transparency programs, such as the reputation/rating premium and its policy intervention.

Indexed as

Healthcare spendingInformation disclosurePrice transparencyQuality transparencySystematic reviewThe reputation premium

Identifiers

PMID36515792
PMCPMC9749158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.