Health care price transparency is gaining momentum as a tangible policy intervention that can unleash market principles to increase competition, help begin to decrease U.S. health care expenditures, and provide Americans with access to affordable, high-quality health care. Indeed, pricing reform is required to facilitate patient shopping in health care. In this narrative policy review, we offer a brief history of health care price transparency efforts and an overview of the health care price transparency literature. Further, we highlight the current rules and legislative initiatives aimed at achieving the full potential of health care price transparency. Lastly, we offer key takeaways and highlight suggestions for future policy directions, including the need to ensure hospital and insurance compliance through more appropriate penalties and incentives, importance of reducing regulation to promote financial upside that can be obtained by both patients and providers who actively promote shopping for lower cost, higher quality health care goods and services, and the need for transparent and easily found quality metrics, including outcomes most important to patients, driven by physicians \"on the ground\" with patient input.

BACKGROUND: Global 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. OBJECTIVE : The 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.
METHODS: A 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.
RESULTS: Of 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.
CONCLUSIONS: Hospital 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.

Policies promoting price transparency may be an important approach to control medicine prices and achieve better access to medicines. As part of a wider review, we aimed to systematically determine whether policies promoting price transparency are effective in managing the prices of pharmaceutical products. We searched for studies published between January 1, 2004 and October 10, 2019, comparing policies promoting price transparency against other interventions or a counterfactual. Eligible study designs included randomized trials, and non-randomized or quasi-experimental studies such as interrupted time-series (ITS), repeated measures (RM), and controlled before-after studies. Studies were eligible if they included at least one of the following outcomes: price (or expenditure as a proxy for price and volume), volume, availability or affordability of pharmaceutical products. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE methodology. A total of 32011 records were retrieved, two of which were eligible for inclusion. Although based on evidence from a single study, public disclosure of medicine prices may be effective in reducing prices of medicines short-term, with benefits possibly sustained long-term. Evidence on the impact of a cost-feedback approach to prescribers was inconclusive. No evidence was found for impact on the outcomes volume, availability or affordability. The overall lack of evidence on policies promoting price transparency is a clear call for further research.

Escalating levels of healthcare spending and price variation in the healthcare market have driven government and insurer interest in price transparency tools that are intended to help consumers shop for services and reduce overall healthcare spending. However, it is unclear whether the objectives of price transparency are being achieved. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize the impact of price transparency on consumer, provider, and purchaser behaviours and outcomes. Price transparency tools had weak impact overall on consumers due to low uptake, and mixed effects on providers. Price-aware patients chose less costly services that led to out-of-pocket cost savings and savings for health insurers; however, these savings did not translate into reductions in aggregate healthcare spending. Disclosure of list prices had no effect, however disclosure of negotiated prices prompted supply-side competition which led to decreases in prices for shoppable services.

Drug price transparency is defined as readily available information on the price of pharmaceutical drugs to either authorities or consumers. Price transparency, together with other information, helps define the value of drugs and enables informed decision making. It has also been used as a reference in drug price setting mechanisms in some countries\' pricing policies.
To investigate the evidence available: 1) on government initiatives to mandate transparency in drug pricing worldwide, 2) on the reported effects of drug pricing transparency initiatives on drug price, and 3) on the limitations and barriers of the implementation of drug pricing transparency.
Databases such as Medline-Ovid, Cochrane Central Register, PubMed, and Science Direct were used to search for relevant literature from inception to February 2018. A manual search of grey literature such as policy papers, governmental publications, and websites was also performed to obtain the information that was not available in the articles. Using narrative synthesis, the results were critically assessed and summarized according to its context of drug pricing approaches.
Of the 4382 relevant articles located, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria for drug price transparency initiatives. Only 3 studies reported the outcomes on the regulation of drug prices. Two studies in South Africa showed that price transparency initiatives did not necessarily reduce drug prices. Another study in the Philippines indicated a reduction in medicines\' price based on the effects of government-mediated access prices. The limitations and barriers in price transparency initiatives include fragmentation of the healthcare system and nondisclosure of discounts and rebates by pharmaceutical companies.
Drug pricing transparency initiatives have been implemented in many countries and commonly coexist with a country\'s pricing policies. Nevertheless, due to sparse evidence, the effect of drug price transparency initiatives on price control is still inconclusive.