Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37406154›Full record

ArticleAnesthesiology2023

Association between "Balance Billing" Legislation and Anesthesia Payments in California: A Retrospective Analysis.

Anjali A Dixit, D Lee Heavner, Laurence C Baker, Eric C Sun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Anjali A DixitDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine; Stanford University, Stanford, California.ORCID 0000-0002-4327-4832
D Lee HeavnerAnalysis Group, Inc., Los Angeles, California.
Laurence C BakerDepartment of Health Policy; Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Eric C SunDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine and (by courtesy) Department of Health Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, California.

Funding

Research in Anesthesia Training Program (ReAP)T32GM089626 · NIGMS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Vivianne L Tawfik · 2010 to 2026
$5.2M
The Epidemiology and Economics of Chronic Back PainK08DA042314 · NIDA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SUN, ERIC · 2017 to 2022
$975k
NIDA NIH HHS K08 DA042314NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM089626
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInsured patients who receive out-of-network care may receive a "balance bill" for the difference between the practitioner's charge and their insurer's contracted rate. In 2017, California banned balance billing for anesthesia care. This study examined the association between California's law and subsequent payments for anesthesia care. The authors hypothesized that, after the law's implementation, there would be no change in in-network payment amounts, and that out-of-network payment amounts and the portion of claims occurring out-of-network would decline.

methodsThe study used average, quarterly, California county-level payment data (2013 to 2020) derived from a claims database of commercially insured patients. Using a difference-in-differences approach, the change was estimated in payment amounts for intraoperative or intrapartum anesthesia care, along with the portion of claims occurring out-of-network, after the law's implementation. The comparison group was office visit payments, expected to be unaffected by the law. The authors prespecified that they would refer to differences of 10% or greater as policy significant.

resultsThe sample consisted of 43,728 procedure code-county-quarter-network combinations aggregated from 4,599,936 claims. The law's implementation was associated with a significant 13.6% decline in payments for out-of-network anesthesia care (95% CI, -16.5 to -10.6%; P < 0.001), translating to an average $108 decrease across all procedures (95% CI, -$149 to -$64). There was a statistically significant 3.0% increase in payments for in-network anesthesia care (95% CI, 0.9 to 5.1%; P = 0.007), translating to an average $87 increase (95% CI, $64 to $110), which may be notable in some circumstances but did not meet the study threshold for identifying a change as policy significant. There was a nonstatistically significant increase in the portion of claims occurring out-of-network (10.0%, 95% CI, -4.1 to 24.2%; P = 0.155).

conclusionsCalifornia's balance billing law was associated with significant declines in out-of-network anesthesia payments in the first 3 yr after implementation. There were mixed statistical and policy significant results for in-network payments and the proportion of out-of-network claims. EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE:

Indexed as

AnesthesiaAnesthesiologyCaliforniaDatabases, FactualHumansRetrospective StudiesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID37406154
PMCPMC10592421

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.