ArticleJAMA network open2026
Commercial Price Variation for Common Cardiovascular Services Across 4 Major US Insurers.
Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Cardiology services are among the most frequently used and costly services and procedures in US health care. Understanding price variation is essential for employers, patients, and policymakers to make informed decisions, contain costs, and promote value-based care. Objective: To assess the extent of variation in commercial insurance payment rates for common cardiology services across major US insurers and states using newly available Transparency in Coverage (TIC) data. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used April 2025 TIC data from a third-party vendor reflecting 2023 contract year claims. The dataset included approximately 6.7 million professional and 104 563 facility price points for 32 common cardiology services across 4 major commercial insurers (Blue Cross Blue Shield, UnitedHealthcare, Aetna, and Cigna Healthcare), representing 78% of the commercial insurance market. The sample covered 51 568 physicians and 4128 facilities nationwide. Exposure: Negotiated allowed amounts paid by 4 major insurers for cardiology services, analyzed by Current Procedural Terminology code and grouped into categories such as diagnostic imaging, electrophysiology, and stress testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Variation in allowed payment amounts for each cardiology service across insurers and states. Measures included median prices and IQRs, coefficients of variation, and volume-weighted price indices. Results: Facility negotiated price variation exceeded professional fee variation, with a median interquartile ratio of 2.56 across services. For example, median facility fees for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) insertion ranged from $6674 (IQR, $3069-$11 402) to $36 269 (IQR, $18 673-$66 880) across insurers. Geographic variation was also substantial, with a median facility price for coronary angiography of $7683 (IQR, $4561-$10 101) across states. Blue Cross Blue Shield had the highest mean facility prices while Aetna had the lowest across most service categories. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of commercial insurance payments for cardiology services, there was substantial variation across both insurers and states, particularly in facility fees. These findings reveal the influence of payer contracting strategies and market dynamics and underscore the need for greater transparency and regulatory oversight to promote efficient health care spending.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.