Introduction: In 2019, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) established a new requirement that all hospitals publish information on the standard costs of services provided. Increased price transparency allows patients to compare healthcare costs and make informed decisions about their care. We investigated compliance with this rule with regards to laparoscopic cholecystectomy, a commonly performed operation and one of the 70 shoppable services (SSs) included in the CMS requirement, among prominent hospitals in the United States.
Methods: The 2021-2022 US News "Best Hospitals for Gastroenterology and GI Surgery" was used to identify the top 50 hospitals for gastrointestinal surgery. Each hospital's website was assessed for the presence of a machine-readable file (MRF) as required by CMS. Each MRF was then evaluated for inclusion of all seven required elements: description of item/service, gross charge, payer-specific negotiated charge, deidentified minimum and maximum negotiated charges, discounted cash price, and billing code. The presence of a consumer-friendly display of SSs was also evaluated. The Current Procedural Terminology code 47562 (removal of gallbladder with an endoscope) was used to search for all six required elements: payer-specific negotiated charge, discounted cash price, de-identified minimum and maximum negotiated charges, campus location of the SS, and billing code. The SS display was further evaluated for provision of additional information on ancillary charges, which are recommended but not required. The MRF and SS were also evaluated for accessibility and date of last update. Hospitals were analyzed according to rank. Compliance with CMS requirements was compared between hospitals.
Results: Fifty one hospitals were included. Of these 51 hospitals, one (2%) provided all the required information for both MRF and SS, 44 (86%) did not provide all necessary components of both the MRF and SS, six (12%) had all necessary elements of an MRF only, and two (4%) had all necessary elements of the SS only. The MRF was accessible in 80% (41) of studied hospitals and 76% (39) provided a gross charge but just 35% (18) of hospitals included the discounted cash price. The SS specified location for all hospitals, indicated a billing code in 96% (49), and provided a payer-specific charge in 96% (48), but less often provided de-identified minimum (30; 59%) and maximum (30; 59%) charges. Thirty nine (76%) hospitals reported that the listed price included an ancillary charge. There was no significant difference between hospitals in having all required elements of both the MRF and SS or the MRF only or SS only.
Conclusions: Hospitals are providing healthcare consumers with standard charge information, although with significant variation in what is disclosed. There is no association between hospital reputation and provision of standard charge information.
Keywords: CMS; General surgery; Price transparency; Standard charges.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.