The COVID-19 pandemic caused major disruptions to the operation and financing of US acute care hospitals. Previous research has documented early effects of the COVID pandemic on hospital financial performance. This paper updates the literature with current data on utilization and financial performance for a large sample of California hospitals covering the period 2017 through the end of 2022 and the first quarter of 2023. The data show that, while hospital overall utilization has largely returned to pre-COVID levels, patient mix has changed and financial performance still lags. Hospital net income margins remain below pre-COVID levels which could trigger price increases to commercially insured patients to offset continuing post-COVID financial shortfalls.
COVID-19 created substantial disruptions and stresses to our health care system, including hospitals, and as such, it is critical to understand how hospital financial performance continues to be affected by these challenges. This study analyzes current data (through quarter [Q] 1 of 2023) to assess evolving financial trends affecting hospitals. The data show that hospitals weathered the initial impact in 2020 and 2021 but encountered challenging financial conditions in 2022 as net income from both operating and nonoperating sources fell dramatically in the face of a sustained increase in operating costs and decreasing revenue from nonoperating sources. Pressures on net income from operations persisted through Q1 of 2023, although nonoperating income has rebounded. Importantly, the data show that trends vary substantially across hospitals and that there is a large subset of hospitals that remain under severe financial pressure and may require assistance from policymakers to sustain operations until their financial positions are stabilized.

BACKGROUND: Social risk factors are key drivers of the geographic variation in spending in the United States but little is known how community-level social risk factors are associated with hospital prices. Our objective was to describe the relationship between regional hospital-reported prices and social risk factors by price type (chargemaster, cash, commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid).
METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis used newly available hospital-reported prices from acute general hospitals in 2022. The prices were for 14 common services. Prices were winsorized at 98%, wage index-adjusted, standardized by service, and aggregated to hospital service areas (HSAs). For social risk, we used 23 measures across 5 domains of social risk (socioeconomic position; race, ethnicity, and culture; gender; social relationships; and residential and community context). Spearman\'s correlation was used to estimate associations between median prices and social risk by price type.
RESULTS: Prices were reported from 2,386 acute general hospitals in 45% (1,502 of 3,436) HSAs. Correlations between regional prices and other social risk factors varied by price type (range: -0.19 to 0.31). Chargemaster and cash prices were significantly correlated with the most community characteristics (10 of 23, 43%) followed by commercial prices (8, 35%). Medicare and Medicaid prices were only significantly correlated with 1 measure (all p < 0.01). All price types were significantly correlated with the percentage of uninsured (all p < 0.01). Chargemaster, cash, and commercial prices were positively correlated with percentage of Hispanic residents, residents with limited English proficiency, and non-citizens (all p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: While regional correlations between prices and social risk factors were weak across all prices, chargemaster, cash, and commercial prices were more like closely aligned with community-level social risk factors than the two public payers (Medicare and Medicaid). Chargemaster, cash, and commercial hospital prices appeared to be higher in socially disadvantaged communities. Further research is needed to clarify the relationship between prices and community social risk factors.

The US health care payment system is complex and difficult to interpret. Although federal regulations require that more data, in the form of charges and negotiated rates, be made available, compliance remains variable. We review chargemaster and negotiated rate values for extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) to assess this variability. We sought to determine the availability of chargemaster and negotiated rates for health care consumers and to assess compliance and pricing among institutions using ECP as a model for apheresis billing.
We obtained ECP chargemaster data and negotiated rates from 20 institutions. We analyzed the availability of ECP chargemaster data and compared values with a previously published historic cohort. We evaluated the availability of negotiated rates and determined relative reimbursement using charge to reimbursement ratios. We determined calculated fines for hospitals based on bed size.
Chargemaster availability increased from 2019 to 2022, though only 65% (13/20) of hospitals had both chargemaster and negotiated rate data. Chargemaster prices increased significantly from 2019 to 2022 (range, $3,586.83-$34,043.00). We reviewed 1,191 negotiated rates, with institutions averaging 93.6 different rates (SD, 189.5). Negotiated rates were variable, ranging from $3,586.83 to $34,043.00 per procedure. Reimbursement was higher among private insurers compared with reported Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services negotiated rates. Of the 35% (7/20) that lacked chargemaster and negotiated rates, institutions faced an average annual fine of $1,430,800.
Despite recent financial penalties, ECP pricing data are often unavailable or inadequate. Current available resources are unlikely to benefit the average health care consumer who requires ECP.

Hospital prices vary substantially for myringotomy with tympanostomy tube placement (M&T) and adenotonsillectomy (T&A). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently implemented hospital price transparency requirements to help families make financially informed decisions about where to seek care. We sought to determine price availability and the extent of price variation for these procedures.
We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the Turquoise Health Hospital Rates Data Platform, which extracts prices for facility fees from publicly available hospital chargemasters. We determined the proportion of hospitals serving pediatric patients that published payer-specific prices for M&T and T&A. We additionally characterized the extent of variation in payer-specific prices both across and within hospitals.
Approximately 40% (n = 909 of 2,266 hospitals) serving pediatric patients disclosed prices for M&T or T&A. Among disclosing hospitals, across-center ratios (adjusted for Medicare hospital wage indices) ranged from 11.0 (M&T; 10th percentile adjusted median price: $536.80 versus 90th percentile adjusted median price: $5,929.93) to 23.4 (revision adenoidectomy age >12 years; 10th percentile: $393.82 versus 90th percentile: $9,209.88). Median within-center price ratios for procedures ranged from 2.2 to 2.7, indicating that some private payers reimbursed the same hospital more than twice as much as other payers for the same procedure.
The majority of hospitals serving pediatric patients were non-compliant with federal requirements to disclose prices for M&T and T&A. Among disclosing hospitals, there was wide variation in payer-specific prices between and within institutions. Further research is necessary to understand whether disclosure of prices will enable families to make more financially informed decisions.
3 Laryngoscope, 133:948-955, 2023.

Policy Points Looking for a way to curtail market power abuses in health care and rein in prices, 20 states have restricted most-favored-nation (MFN) clauses in some health care contracts. Little is known as to whether restrictions on MFN clauses slow health care price growth. Banning MFN clauses between insurers and hospitals in highly concentrated insurer markets seems to improve competition and lead to lower hospital prices.
Most-favored-nation (MFN) contract clauses have recently garnered attention from both Congress and state legislatures looking for ways to curtail market power abuses in health care and rein in prices. In health care, a typical MFN contract clause is stipulated by the insurer and requires a health care provider to grant the insurer the lowest (i.e., the most-favored) price among the insurers it contracts with. As of August 2020, 20 states restrict the use of MFN clauses in health care contracts (19 states ban their use in at least some health care contracts), with 8 states prohibiting their use between 2010 and 2016.
Using event study and difference-in-differences research designs, we compared prices for a standardized hospital admission in states that banned MFN clauses between 2010 and 2016 with standardized hospital admission prices in states without MFN bans.
Our results show that bans on MFN clauses reduced hospital price growth in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) with highly concentrated insurer markets. Specifically, we found that mean hospital prices in MSAs with highly concentrated insurer markets would have been $472 (2.8%) lower in 2016 had the MSAs been in states that banned MFN clauses in 2010. In 2016, the population in our sample that resided in MSAs with highly concentrated insurer markets was just under 75 million (23% of the US population). Hence, banning MFN clauses in all MSAs in our sample with highly concentrated insurer markets in 2010 would have generated savings on hospital expenditures in the range of $2.4 billion per year.
Our empirical findings suggest banning MFN clauses between insurers and providers in highly concentrated insurer markets would improve competition and lead to lower prices and expenditures.

To test whether out-of-pocket costs and negotiated hospital prices for childbirth change after enrollment in high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) and whether price effects differ in markets with more hospitals.
Administrative medical claims data from 2010 to 2014 from three large commercial insurers with plans in all U.S. states provided by the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI).
I identify employer groups that switched from non-HDHPs in 1 year to HDHPs in a subsequent year. I estimate enrollees\' change in out-of-pocket costs and negotiated hospital prices for childbirth after HDHP switch, relative to a comparison group of employers that do not switch plans. I use a triple-difference design to estimate price changes for enrollees in markets with more hospital choices. Finally, I re-estimate models with hospital-fixed effects.
From the HCCI sample, childbearing women enrolled in an employer-sponsored plan with at least 10 people.
Switching to an HDHP increases out-of-pocket cost $227 (p < 0.001; comparison group base $790) and has no meaningful effect on hospital-negotiated prices (-$26, p = 0.756; comparison group base $5821). HDHP switch is associated with a marginally statistically significant price increase in markets with three or fewer hospitals ($343, p = 0.096; comparison group base $5806) and, relative to those markets, with a price decrease in markets with more than three hospitals (-$512; p = 0.028). Predicted prices decrease from $5702 to $5551 after HDHP switch in markets with more than three hospitals due primarily to lower prices conditional on using the same hospital.
Prices for childbirth in markets with more hospitals decrease after HDHP switch due to lower hospital prices for HDHPs relative to prices at those same hospitals for non-HDHPs. These results reinforce previous findings that HDHPs do not promote price shopping but suggest negotiated prices may be lower for HDHP enrollees.

The prices that private insurers pay hospitals have received considerable attention in recent years, but most of that literature has focused on the commercially insured population. Although nearly one-third of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in a Medicare Advantage (MA) plan, little is known about the prices paid to hospitals by the private insurers that administer such plans. More information on the hospital prices paid by MA plans would provide additional insights into whether MA prices are more closely tied to Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) prices or commercial prices. Moreover, information on whether the hospital prices paid by MA plans vary with market characteristics or other factors would be useful for evaluating the performance of the MA program and analyzing proposals to modify it. In this study, we compared the hospital prices paid by MA plans and commercial plans with Medicare FFS prices using 2013 claims from the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI) database. The HCCI claims were used to calculate hospital prices for private insurers, and Medicare\'s payment rules were used to estimate Medicare FFS prices. We focused on stays at acute care hospitals in metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). We found MA prices to be roughly equal to Medicare FFS prices, on average, but commercial prices were 89% higher than FFS prices. In addition, commercial prices varied greatly across and within MSAs, but MA prices varied much less.

Governments frequently draw upon the private health care sector to promote sustainability, optimal use of resources, and increased choice. In doing so, policy-makers face the challenge of harnessing resources while grappling with the market failures and equity concerns associated with private financing of health care. The growth of the private health sector in South Africa has fundamentally changed the structure of health care delivery. A mutually reinforcing ecosystem of private health insurers, private hospitals and specialists has grown to account for almost half of the country\'s spending on health care, despite only serving 16% of the population with the capacity to pay. Following years of consolidation among private hospital groups and insurance schemes, and after successive failures at establishing credible price benchmarks, South Africa\'s private hospitals charge prices comparable with countries that are considerably richer. This compromises the affordability of a broad-based expansion in health care for the population. The South African example demonstrates that prices can be part of a structure that perpetuates inequalities in access to health care resources. The lesson for other countries is the importance of norms and institutions that uphold price schedules in high-income countries. Efforts to compromise or liberalize price setting should be undertaken with a healthy degree of caution.

Hospitals in the United States maintain chargemasters that contain the official list prices for all billable services. The prices vary widely across hospitals and are more than three times what hospitals are paid for treating a patient, on average. From this it is tempting to conclude that list prices are a strange, yet ultimately inconsequential, quirk of US health care. However, using both state and national data sets covering the period 2002-14, we found considerable evidence suggesting that list prices reflect hospitals\' strategic behavior and have meaningful effects on payments made by and on behalf of patients. Specifically, we found that list prices varied predominantly across hospitals and within markets, were well predicted by observable hospital characteristics, and were positively related to prices actually paid by patients and their insurers. Moreover, analyses of data before and after the implementation of California\'s Hospital Fair Pricing Act suggest that high list prices causally increased payments from the uninsured. However, list prices had at most a limited relationship with care quality.

A surge in hospital consolidation is fueling formation of ever larger multi-hospital systems throughout the United States. This article examines hospital prices in California over time with a focus on hospitals in the largest multi-hospital systems. Our data show that hospital prices in California grew substantially (+76% per hospital admission) across all hospitals and all services between 2004 and 2013 and that prices at hospitals that are members of the largest, multi-hospital systems grew substantially more (113%) than prices paid to all other California hospitals (70%). Prices were similar in both groups at the start of the period (approximately $9200 per admission). By the end of the period, prices at hospitals in the largest systems exceeded prices at other California hospitals by almost $4000 per patient admission. Our study findings are potentially useful to policy makers across the country for several reasons. Our data measure actual prices for a large sample of hospitals over a long period of time in California. California experienced its wave of consolidation much earlier than the rest of the country and as such our findings may provide some insights into what may happen across the United States from hospital consolidation including growth of large, multi-hospital systems now forming in the rest of the rest of the country.