Hospital-owned practices have higher costs than MD-owned

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

drusso

Full Member
Moderator Emeritus
Lifetime Donor
Joined
Nov 21, 1998
Messages
12,568
Reaction score
6,967
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-healthcare-watch-20140831-story.html

If your doctor's office is newly part of a hospital system, you may see your costs climb. That's because hospitals typically charge more for the same service provided in a doctor's office.

For example, Turney says, "You can get your chest X-ray done at the clinic and it's going to cost you $400, but if you get it done in the hospital it's going to cost you $800. The procedure itself still costs $400. It's just that you had an additional charge for the facility."

Members don't see this ad.
 
Apparently, the LA times thought so.

All the self-congratulatory praise for the ObamaCare "bending the cost the curve" simply doesn't add up for those of us who actually sit down with insurance company contract representatives and negotiate our rates for a living...my patient's EOB's they bring in from the hospital tell a very different story.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
...my patient's EOB's they bring in from the hospital tell a very different story.

And those savvy enough to actually read the EOB and understand them are PISSED at the hospital fees. I've seen some ditching their PCPs after thier providers made the move to a hospital setting.
 
Nice idea, but HOPD fees aren't going anywhere. Too many hospitals depend on the bloated revenue to stay afloat. Private insurances may pay higher rates at the hospital than MDC/MC, but (at least in my state), it's not the windfall provided by the HOPD facility rates. The AHA is a powerful lobby and won't let provider based billing go down without a fight.
 
Nice idea, but HOPD fees aren't going anywhere. Too many hospitals depend on the bloated revenue to stay afloat. Private insurances may pay higher rates at the hospital than MDC/MC, but (at least in my state), it's not the windfall provided by the HOPD facility rates. The AHA is a powerful lobby and won't let provider based billing go down without a fight.

“I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting."

The hospitals and their lobbyists will continue to cling to their religion and guns, but as we all know change doesn't come FROM Washington, it comes TO Washington...
 
in my area the mean income of a 200 bed hospital 10 person managing team is 395,000 ( from 900,000 to 180,000). that is just salary and does not include "bonuses"
 
no offense, but posting 3 separate articles from the same author on the same website is somewhat repetitious.

im being a little cynical today, but this individual you keep posting about (i assume its not you) is performing 3 times more services per Medicare patient than his interventional pain management peers in the state, and charges on average $657 per patient, compared to the average charge of $468 for his state.
 
Yes you do sound a bit peevish.

3 links because they are scattered over the site among many unrelated posts.

What billing data are you referencing?
 
Medicare.

my point is, supporting opinions lend more weight to one's position. after all, a PROMPT supporter wouldnt go post 3 different articles from Portenoy as an argument for opioids. Rather 1 from portenoy, 1 from haddock, 1 from fishbain...
 
or, MM could just post his thoughts. same thing, ducttape. try to connect the dots
 
Three DIFFERENT pieces on three DIFFERENT but related topics. Related in that they discuss various aspects of how the payment system is dysfunctional. But each is a separate and distinct discussion of a different aspect of the situation.

Look at that Medicare billing. Do you see anything unusual about the top two lines? They account for half the payments. Those are reimbursement for medications, so there's no profit there.

How did you calculate that there 3X as many procedures? Did you include line 1? That's the Synvisc drug code. Synvisc is billed by the unit, 46 units per syringe. So 9100/46 = 197 knees in 124 patients, reflecting that some patients were bilateral. Lots of ortho referrals for viscosupplementation.

If you make this more of a conventional pain practice by backing out the skewing due to the bizarre way Medicare reports medication payments both the total billing and the number of procedures fall into line.
 
i was never told directly, so i did not presume to know your true non-5th Dimension manifestation.

i would prefer that MM and everyone else post their own thoughts, so as to be as transparent as possible. now forgive me if i wasnt around when it was directly revealed that MM was MG, but my impression of the worth of the articles, knowing that they are coming from MM, are different than if MM were posting about someone else who had remarkably the same opinion.

likewise, if 101N posts something that Kolodny states, i take that differently than if 101N were Kolodny and reposting something he wrote.

no offense MM, but unfortunately, thats how i garner impressions.
 
So you'd rather that I cut and paste something found elsewhere? Then people would be pissed that I was flooding the board. Whether it's repeated here or you follow a link, the content is the content.

I don't care for the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority". The content rests on its own merits no matter who says it. If you want to say, "That's Portenoy's opinion on opioids" and disregard everything he saysI think that's less valid than saying "If Portenoy wrote it, beware of his bias".

You could spend a good part of your career undoing all the stupid and unfounded things in the oral tradition we have in pain management. Have you ever read the original paper about doing double blocks of the medial branches? It's a hodge podge of garbage. I went over it at length with Bogduk years ago and he agreed with me that it wasn't a very good paper, and he's one of the authors. Yet that has crept into our practices (not mine, BTW) and people still do them, often because the insurance guidelines say so.
 
forgive me for not knowing/remembering that you wrote those articles. i initially viewed them as 3 independent sources, all backing up the original reason for this thread. i had to click on the links to realize that they were all written by the same author. my error in then not realizing that you were the author compounded the impression.


how about "This reminds me of the articles i wrote on this website. ill link them for anyone who hasnt read them."

Or "I believe i eloquently stated my position on these articles i wrote. Links below. they agree with the original post of this thread. In addition, here are other legitimate sources/links that agree."


i am not so forgiving to state that content rests on its own merits no matter who says it. predisposed bias alters the merits. knowing the speaker and the context are a component to the overall value of the content.
 
on a side note, not to hijack the thread, but is it your clinical opinion that synvisc is effective? i might have to change my usage, cause my experience, more limited to yours, has not been as favorable, so i have almost entirely stopped using it.
 
I can't believe you wasted my time fussing over something you hadn't read.
 
Still not looking so good for Hospital-owned practices...

Total Expenditures per Patient in Hospital-Owned and Physician-Owned Physician Organizations in California

James C. Robinson, PhD, MPH1; Kelly Miller, BA2
[+-] Author Affiliations
1University of California, School of Public Health, Berkeley
2Integrated Healthcare Association, Oakland, California
JAMA. 2014;312(16):1663-1669. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.14072.
Importance Hospitals are rapidly acquiring medical groups and physician practices. This consolidation may foster cooperation and thereby reduce expenditures, but also may lead to higher expenditures through greater use of hospital-based ambulatory services and through greater hospital pricing leverage against health insurers.
Objective To determine whether total expenditures per patient were higher in physician organizations (integrated medical groups and independent practice associations) owned by local hospitals or multihospital systems compared with groups owned by participating physicians.
Design and Setting Data were obtained on total expenditures for the care provided to 4.5 million patients treated by integrated medical groups and independent practice associations in California between 2009 and 2012. The patients were covered by commercial health maintenance organization (HMO) insurance and the data did not include patients covered by commercial preferred provider organization (PPO) insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid.
Main Outcomes and Measures Total expenditures per patient annually, measured in terms of what insurers paid to the physician organizations for professional services, to hospitals for inpatient and outpatient procedures, to clinical laboratories for diagnostic tests, and to pharmaceutical manufacturers for drugs and biologics.
Exposures Annual expenditures per patient were compared after adjusting for patient illness burden, geographic input costs, and organizational characteristics.
Results Of the 158 organizations, 118 physician organizations (75%) were physician-owned and provided care for 3 065 551 patients, 19 organizations (12%) were owned by local hospitals and provided care for 728 608 patients, and 21 organizations (13%) were owned by multihospital systems and provided care for 693 254 patients. In 2012, physician-owned physician organizations had mean expenditures of $3066 per patient (95% CI, $2892 to $3240), hospital-owned physician organizations had mean expenditures of $4312 per patient (95% CI, $3768 to $4857), and physician organizations owned by multihospital systems had mean expenditures of $4776 (95% CI, $4349 to $5202) per patient. After adjusting for patient severity and other factors over the period, local hospital–owned physician organizations incurred expenditures per patient 10.3% (95% CI, 1.7% to 19.7%) higher than did physician-owned organizations (adjusted difference, $435 [95% CI, $105 to $766], P = .02). Organizations owned by multihospital systems incurred expenditures 19.8% (95% CI, 13.9% to 26.0%) higher (adjusted difference, $704 [95% CI,$512 to $895], P < .001) than physician-owned organizations. The largest physician organizations incurred expenditures per patient 9.2% (95% CI, 3.8% to 15.0%, P = .001) higher than the smallest organizations (adjusted difference, $130 [95% CI, $−32 to $292]).
Conclusions and Relevance From the perspective of the insurers and patients, between 2009 and 2012, hospital-owned physician organizations in California incurred higher expenditures for commercial HMO enrollees for professional, hospital, laboratory, pharmaceutical, and ancillary services than physician-owned organizations. Although organizational consolidation may increase some forms of care coordination, it may be associated with higher total expenditures.
 
Top