This study explores the variation in specialist physician fees and examines whether the variation can be attributed to patient risk factors, variation between physicians, medical specialties, or other factors. We use health insurance claims data from a large private health insurer in Australia. Although Australia has a publicly funded health system that provides universal health coverage, about 44 % of the population holds private health insurance. Specialist physician fees in the private sector are unregulated; physicians can charge any price they want, subject to market forces. We examine the variation in fees using two price measures: total fees charged and out-of- pocket payments. We follow a two-stage method of removing the influence of patient risk factors by computing risk-adjusted prices at patient-level, and aggregating the adjusted prices over all claims made by each physician to arrive at physician-level average prices. In the second stage, we use variance-component models to analyse the variation in the physician-level average prices. We find that patient risk factors account for a small portion of the variance in fees and out-of-pocket payments. Physician-specific variation accounts for the bulk of the vari- ance. The results underscore the importance of understanding physician characteristics in formulating policy efforts to reduce fee variation.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, over-the-counter (OTC) medicines may only be dispensed by community pharmacies (CPs). German CPs must ensure \'adequate\' counselling, including the cost of medicines. Along with information gathering and advice giving as classic aspects of counselling, the aim was also to investigate counselling indicators of product and price transparency.
METHODS: The cross-sectional study was based on the covert simulated patient (SP) methodology and was conducted in a random sample of CPs stratified by districts in the major German city of Munich. Each of the 178 selected CPs was visited once by one of five trained female students. They simulated a symptom-based sub-scenario 1 with a request for an OTC medicine for a headache and a sub-scenario 2 with standardised information regarding product and price transparency. The assessment, completed immediately postvisit by the SPs, included a total of 23 items.
RESULTS: All 178 scheduled visits were completed successfully. The median counselling score with the classic items was 3.0 out of 12 points (interquartile range [IQR] 4.25) and when expanded by items for product and price transparency the score was 4.0 out of 14 points (IQR 4.00). A selection of medicines was offered unsolicited in 38.2% of the visits and in 5.6% of the visits voluntary price information was provided before the transaction. A request for a cheaper medicine led to a significant price reduction (Wilcoxon signed-rank test; p < 0.001, r = 0.869).
CONCLUSIONS: Due to the below-average level of counselling, the regional chambers of pharmacists are recommended to initiate measures for improvement. There is also potential for optimisation with regard to product and price transparency as an important extension of the classic counselling aspects. It is therefore recommended that the government raise customers\' awareness of the cost of medicines.

Healthcare costs in the United States (US) exceed those of comparable nations without yielding better outcomes. Factors contributing to this include lack of cost transparency, limited outpatient resources due to primary care provider shortages, and high patient volumes, where patients are not educated on differentials and the stepwise process of workup. Addressing these issues could curb unnecessary hospitalizations and expenses. A 31-year-old woman with hypertension, alcohol use, anemia, and obesity experienced paresthesias in September 2022. At her first visit, the exam was consistent with decreased bilateral plantar sensation; however, there was no weakness or gait abnormality. This was not consistent with a focal neurologic distribution. Despite multiple ER visits, her condition persisted. Initial evaluations included potassium replacement ($80 for labs, $13 for tablet), nonacute head CT ($1500), and benign CT L-spine ($2500). Subsequent hospitalization led to brain MRI/MRA head/neck ($6700) and serum workup ($240), revealing deficiencies in vitamin D, folate, and B12. Treatment involved prednisone taper ($30) and supplemental vitamins ($35), with lifestyle recommendations ($0). After evaluating CompuNet lab costs and equivalent market imaging prices, potential savings exceeding $15,000 were identified through more focused and cost-conscious initial testing including vitamin studies and outpatient management, reducing hospitalizations and imaging expenses. Rising healthcare costs in the US are driven by various factors, yet fail to correlate with improved outcomes. Our case argues that enhancing access to primary care, promoting cost transparency, and educating patients on healthcare decisions are crucial for mitigating excessive spending.

OBJECTIVE: To assess trends in hospital price disclosures after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Final Rule went into effect.
METHODS: The Turquoise Health Price Transparency Dataset was used to identify all US hospitals that publicly displayed pricing from 2021 to 2023.
METHODS: Price-disclosing versus nondisclosing hospitals were compared using Pearson\'s Chi-squared and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Bayesian structural time-series modeling was used to determine if enforcement of increased penalties for nondisclosure was associated with a change in the trend of hospital disclosures.
METHODS: Not applicable.
RESULTS: As of January 2023, 5162 of 6692 (77.1%) US hospitals disclosed pricing of their services, with the majority (2794 of 5162 [54.1%]) reporting their pricing within the first 6 months of the final rule going into effect in January 2021. An increase in hospital disclosures was observed after penalties for nondisclosure were enforced in January 2022 (relative effect size 20%, p = 0.002). Compared with nondisclosing hospitals, disclosing hospitals had higher annual revenue, bed number, and were more likely to be have nonprofit ownership, academic affiliation, provide emergency services, and be in highly concentrated markets (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Hospital pricing disclosures are continuously in flux and influenced by regulatory and market factors.

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: In the United States (US) men who undergo vasectomy and/or vasectomy reversal (vasovasotomy) are likely to pay out-of-pocket for these procedures. We characterized the publicly disclosed pricing of both procedures with a focus on variability in self-pay prices.
METHODS: We queried all US hospitals for publicly disclosed prices of vasectomy and vasovasotomy. We assessed interhospital variability in self-pay pricing and compared hospitals charging high (≥75th percentile) and low (≤25th percentile) self-pay prices for either procedure. We also examined trends in pricing after the 2022 US Supreme Court decision that allowed individual states to ban abortion.
RESULTS: Of 6692 hospitals, 1375 (20.5%) and 281 (4.2%) disclosed self-pay prices for vasectomy and vasovasotomy, respectively. There was a 17-fold difference between the 10th and 90th percentile self-pay prices for vasectomy ($421-$7147) and a 39-fold difference for vasovasotomy ($446-$17,249). Compared with hospitals charging low (≤25th percentile) self-pay prices for vasectomy or vasovasotomy, hospitals charging high (≥75th percentile) prices were larger (median 150 vs. 59 beds, p < 0.001) and more likely to be for-profit (31.2% vs. 7.8%, p < 0.001), academic-affiliated (52.7% vs. 23.1%, p < 0.001), and located in an urban zip code (70.1% vs. 41.3%, p < 0.001). From October 2022 to April 2023, the median self-pay price of vasectomy increased by 10% (from $1667 to $1832) while the median self-pay price of vasovasotomy decreased by 16% (from $3309 to $2786).
CONCLUSIONS: We found large variability in self-pay pricing for vasectomy and vasectomy reversal, which may serve as a barrier to the accessibility of male reproductive care.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to assess hospital compliance with federal price transparency mandates and barriers to pricing information in Tennessee.
METHODS: All hospitals websites were queried for gross, cash, and BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee prices for 8 high-frequency laboratory tests in 2 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services-mandated pricing sources: (1) a machine-readable file of all available services and (2) a consumer-friendly display of 300 shoppable services. Barriers, including click counts, data availability, and intrahospital price discrepancies, were noted.
RESULTS: Of the 145 Tennessee hospitals assessed, 97.2% were noncompliant with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services final rule. Subanalysis of available machine-readable files, price estimators, and shoppable services files demonstrated 49.6%, 95.1%, and 78.6% noncompliance, respectively. Barriers to pricing information included requiring protected health information (55.9%), missing at least 1 pricing source (7.6%), having no pricing sources available (6.2%), and involving more than 3 clicks to access the cash price in machine-readable files (54.1%) and price estimators (68.6%.) Average intrahospital discrepancy for basic metabolic panel cash prices across pricing sources was $101.30 (range, $0-1012.40).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed high levels of noncompliance with price transparency laws, inconsistent and inaccessible pricing, and continued challenges facing patients in Tennessee.

The Price Transparency Rule of 2021 forced payors and hospitals to publicly disclose negotiated prices to foster competition and reduce cost. Burn care is costly and concentrated at less than 130 centers in the US. We aimed to analyze geographic price variations for inpatient burn care and measure the effects of American Burn Association (ABA) verification status and market concentration on prices. All available commercial rates for 2021-2022 for burn-related Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) 927, 928, 929, 933, 934, and 935 were merged with hospital-level variables, ABA verification status, and Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) data. For the DRG 927 (most intensive burn admission) a linear mixed effects model was fit with cost as the outcome and the following variables as covariates: HHI, plan type, safety net status, profit status, verification status, rural status, teaching hospital status. Random intercepts allowed for individual burn centers. There were 170,738 rates published from 1541 unique hospitals. Commercial reimbursement rates for the same DRG varied by a factor of approximately three within hospitals for all DRGs. Similarly, rates across different hospitals varied by a factor of three for all DRGs, with DRG 927 having the most variation. Burn center status was independently associated with higher reimbursement rates adjusting for facility-level factors for all DRGs except for 935. Notably, HHI was the largest predictor of commercial rates (p<0.001). Negotiated prices for inpatient burn care vary widely. ABA-verified centers garner higher rates along with burn centers in more concentrated/monopolistic markets.

Insufficient price transparency has emerged as a pivotal contributor to patient dissatisfaction, escalating costs, and diminished productivity within Iran\'s health system. This study aims to delineate and elucidate a definition of price transparency, identify suitable strategies, and present the outcomes associated with establishing a health system that embraces transparent pricing while also addressing the challenges ahead. Employing a quantitative-qualitative research design, data were extracted from a semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. A purposive sampling method, encompassing sequential and snowball techniques, was employed to capture the perspectives of all stakeholders involved in the issue of price transparency in Iran. The interview data were analyzed using the grounded theory approach was classified into three categories: price transparency before, during, and after the receipt of healthcare services. Our findings reveal the causes of low price transparency, strategies to address the issue, and the consequences associated with increased levels of transparency. Ultimately, we contend that health systems can significantly enhance efficiency, patient satisfaction, and the performance of health insurance by adopting transparent pricing for health services, thus obviating the need for resource-intensive restructuring efforts.

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.