Identifying outlier patterns of inconsistent ambulance billing in Medicare.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To illustrate a method that accounts for sampling variation in identifying suppliers and counties with outlying rates of a particular pattern of inconsistent billing for ambulance services to Medicare.Data sources
US Medicare claims for a 20% simple random sample of 2010-2014 fee-for-service beneficiaries.Study design
We identified instances in which ambulance suppliers billed Medicare for transporting a patient to a hospital, but no corresponding hospital visit appeared in billing claims. We estimated the distributions of outlier supplier and county rates of such "ghost rides" by fitting a nonparametric empirical Bayes model with flexible distributional assumptions to account for sampling variation.Data collection
We included Basic and advanced life support ground emergency ambulance claims with a hospital destination.Principal findings
"Ghost ride" rates varied considerably across both ambulance suppliers and counties. We estimated 6.1% of suppliers and 5.0% of counties had rates that exceeded 3.6%, which was twice the national average of "ghost rides" (1.8% of all ambulance transports).Conclusions
Health care fraud and abuse are frequently asserted but can be difficult to detect. Our data-driven approach may be a useful starting point for further investigation.
SUBMITTER: Sanghavi P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7969207 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Identifying outlier patterns of inconsistent ambulance billing in Medicare.
Sanghavi Prachi P Jena Anupam B AB Newhouse Joseph P JP Zaslavsky Alan M AM
Health services research 20210125 2
<h4>Objective</h4>To illustrate a method that accounts for sampling variation in identifying suppliers and counties with outlying rates of a particular pattern of inconsistent billing for ambulance services to Medicare.<h4>Data sources</h4>US Medicare claims for a 20% simple random sample of 2010-2014 fee-for-service beneficiaries.<h4>Study design</h4>We identified instances in which ambulance suppliers billed Medicare for transporting a patient to a hospital, but no corresponding hospital visit ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:In the Furthering Access to Stroke Telemedicine (FAST) Act, passed as part of a budget omnibus in 2018, Congress permanently expanded Medicare payment for telemedicine consultations for acute stroke ("telestroke") from delivery only in rural areas to delivery in both urban and rural areas, effective January 1, 2019. Using a controlled time-series analysis, we found that one year after FAST Act implementation, billing for Medicare telestroke increased substantially in emergency departments at both directly affected urban hospitals and indirectly affected rural hospitals. However, at that time only a minority of hospitals with known telestroke capacity had ever billed Medicare for that service, and there was substantial billing inconsistent with Medicare requirements. As Congress considers options for Medicare telemedicine payment after the COVID-19 pandemic, our findings, which are consistent with confusion among providers regarding telemedicine billing requirements, suggest that simplified payment rules would help ensure that expanded reimbursement achieves its intended impact.
| S-EPMC9188431 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe No Surprises Act implemented in 2022 aims to protect patients from surprise out-of-network (OON) bills, but it does not include ground ambulance services. Understanding ground ambulance OON and balance billing patterns from previous years could guide legislation aimed to protect patients following ground ambulance use.ObjectiveTo characterize OON billing from ground ambulance services by evaluating whether OON billing risk differs by the site of ambulance origination (home, hospital, nonhospital medical facility, or scene of incident).Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study of the Merative MarketScan dataset between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, using claims-based data from employer-based private health insurance plans in the US. Participants included patients who utilized ground ambulances during the study period. Data were analyzed from June to December 2023.ExposureMedical encounter requiring ground ambulance transportation.Main outcomes and measuresGround ambulance OON billing prevalence was calcuated. Linear probability models adjusted for state-level mixed effects were fit to evaluate OON billing probability across ambulance origins. Secondary outcomes included the allowed payment, patient cost-sharing amounts, and potential balance bills for OON ambulances.ResultsAmong 2 031 937 ground ambulance services (1 375 977 unique patients) meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 1 072 791 (52.8%) rides transported men, and the mean (SD) patient age was 41 (18) years. Of all services, 1 113 676 (54.8%) were billed OON. OON billing probabilities for ambulances originating from home or scene were higher by 12.0 percentage points (PP) (95% CI, 11.8-12.2 PP; P < .001 for home; 95% CI, 11.7-12.2 PP; P < .001 for scene) vs those originating from hospitals. Mean (SD) total financial burden, including cost-sharing and potential balance bills per ambulance service, was $434.70 ($415.99) per service billed OON vs $132.21 ($244.92) per service billed in-network.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of over 2 million ground ambulance services, ambulances originating from home, the scene of an incident, and nonhospital medical facilities were more likely to result in OON bills. Legislation is needed to protect patients from surprise billing following use of ground ambulances, more than half of which resulted in OON billing. Future legislation should at minimum offer protections for these subsets of patients often calling for an ambulance in urgent or emergent situations.
| S-EPMC10882413 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the effects of New York's surprise billing regulations on price changes by emergency ground ambulance service providers.Study designWe exploited a natural experiment using a difference-in-differences design with randomization inference (RI) to examine the effects of New York state regulations on the prices of emergency ground ambulances, analyzing 2012-2019 commercial claims data. In March 2015, New York implemented a law protecting patients from surprise out-of-network (OON) balance bills, including ground ambulance services. New York's policy tied OON ground ambulance reimbursements to usual, customary, and reasonable rates that typically reflect charges. The control group consisted of similar states that never enacted surprise billing laws. Although self-funded plans are exempted from state laws, we also examined for spillover effects on self-funded plans.Data source and analytic sampleMulti-payer national commercial plan claims data were used. The study sample was selected by isolating claims involving an emergency ground ambulance activation code.Principal findingsThe event study findings indicated that New York's law led to a continuous increase in prices, relative to controls. The law's implementation was associated with an overall emergency ground ambulance price increase of 13 percentage points (RI p-value: 0.07). We observed a 21-percentage-point increase in in-network prices (RI p-value: 0.07) and a 19-percentage-point increase in OON prices (RI p-value: 0.07), relative to controls, for fully insured health plans. Similar changes in overall prices and in in-network prices were observed in self-insured plans. Last, our study did not find statistically significant evidence of changes in out-of-pocket cost-sharing amounts under New York's regulation.ConclusionsBalance billing laws based on charges can lead to price increases for emergency ground ambulance services. Legislation intended to inoculate patients from these surprise billings for ground ambulance transportation may have unintended consequences for costs of care.What is known on this topicEmergency ground ambulances are a major source of surprise billing. The federal No Surprises Act of 2020 excluded emergency ground ambulance services. Some states have regulations that prohibit out-of-network balance bills for ground ambulance services.What this study addsThe study provides the first empirical evidence on the potential impacts of regulations on price changes among emergency ground ambulance providers. The study offers evidence of state policies' effects on fully insured plans and potential spillover effects on self-funded plans. Experiences from New York's state ambulance out-of-network billing regulation indicate that tying reimbursement policies to charges may have the unintended consequences of increasing health care costs.
| S-EPMC11911222 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedicare introduced billing codes in 2016 to encourage clinicians to engage in advance care planning (ACP) and promote goal-concordantend-of-life care, but uptake has been modest. While prior research examined individual-level factors in ACP billing, organization-level factors associated with physician practices billing for ACP remain unknown.ObjectiveExamine the role of practices in ACP billing.DesignRetrospective cohort study analyzing 2016-2018 national Medicare data.ParticipantsA total of 53,926 practices with at least 10 attributed Medicare beneficiaries.Main measuresOutcomes were practice-level ACP billing (any use by the practice) and ACP use rate by practice-attributed beneficiaries. Practice characteristics were number of beneficiaries attributed to the practice; percentage of beneficiaries by race, Medicare-Medicaid dual enrollment, sex, and age; practice size; and specialty mix.Key resultsFifteen percent of practices billed for ACP. In adjusted models, we found higher odds of ACP billing and higher ACP use rates among practices with more primary care physicians (billing AOR: 10.01, 95%CI: 8.81-11.38 for practices with 75-100% (vs 0) primary care physicians), and those serving more Medicare beneficiaries (billing AOR: 4.55, 95%CI 4.08-5.08 for practices with highest (vs lowest) quintile of beneficiaries), and larger shares of female beneficiaries (billing AOR: 3.06, 95% CI 2.01-4.67 for 75-100% (vs <25%) female ).ConclusionsSeveral years after Medicare introduced ACP reimbursements for physicians, relatively few practices bill for ACP. ACP billing was more likely in large practices with a greater percentage of primary care physicians. To increase ACP billing uptake, policymakers and health system leaders might target interventions to larger practices where a small number of physicians already bill for ACP and to specialty practices that serve as the primary source of care for seriously ill patients.
| S-EPMC9640523 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSome Medicare-reimbursed services are overused or improperly used, resulting in payments for unnecessary services.ObjectiveTo determine if prior authorization of services vulnerable to improper use is associated with reduced use and costs without changing patient access or health outcomes.Design setting and participantsThis study involved repeated cross-sectional evaluation with a state-level matched control group construction and inverse propensity score weighting at the Medicare beneficiary level. Eight states plus the District of Columbia requiring prior authorization were compared with 13 matched comparison group states not subject to prior authorization. Observations on approximately 1.7 million Medicare beneficiaries spanned January 2012 through December 2019. Depending on their state of residence, this included 3 or 4 preintervention years and 4 or 5 postintervention years. Data analysis was performed from September 2020 to July 2021.InterventionAmbulance suppliers were directed to request prior authorization for Repetitive, Scheduled, Non-Emergent Ambulance Transport (RSNAT) services; failure to do so resulted in prepayment claim review. The goal of prior authorization is to reduce use of nonemergency ambulance transports that do not meet Medicare coverage criteria.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes included total cost of care, RSNAT use rates and expenditures, unplanned hospital admission, emergency department admission, and emergency ambulance use per beneficiary-year. All measures were constructed from Medicare claims.ResultsApproximately 1.7 million Medicare beneficiaries were observed in the study (mean [SD] age, 71 [15] years; 50% female beneficiaries; 30% Black beneficiaries, 64% White beneficiaries; 20% rural residence; 35% dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid; 58% with end-stage renal disease; and 44% with severe [stage 3 or 4] pressure ulcers). After controlling for covariates, the results showed that prior authorization was associated with a 2.4% reduction in total annual expenditures for a total of $1530 per beneficiary-year (95% CI, -$1775 to -$1285; P < .001); a 61% reduction in the probability of RSNAT use for a total of 4.1 percentage points per beneficiary-year (95% CI, -4.26 to -3.94; P < .001); a 77% reduction in RSNAT expenditures for a total of $1136 per beneficiary-year (95% CI, -$1179 to -$1093; P < .001); a 1.4% reduction in the probability of emergency department use by 0.99 percentage points per beneficiary-year (95% CI, -1.17 to -0.81; P < .001); no change in the probability of emergency ambulance use (0.07 percentage points, 95% CI, -0.15 to 0.29; P = .50); a 2.6% reduction in the probability of unplanned hospital admission for a total of 1.53 percentage points per beneficiary-year (95% CI, -1.71 to -1.35; P < .001); and a 19% annual increase in the probability of emergency dialysis use for a total of 1.4 percentage points per beneficiary with end-stage renal disease (95% CI, 1.28 to 1.60; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this difference-in-differences analysis of Medicare beneficiaries, the results suggest that the RSNAT Prior Authorization Model was associated with reduced costs with little or no change in the quality or access indicators examined. Targeted approaches to prior authorization may be an appropriate control measure for Medicare services vulnerable to improper use.
| S-EPMC9287758 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeRadiation oncology (RO) has seen declines in Medicare reimbursement (MCR). However, there are no recent studies analyzing the contributions of specific billing codes to overall RO reimbursement. We compared total MCR for specific Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes in 2019 with MCR for those codes in 2010 and 2015, corrected for inflation, to see how the same basket of RO services in 2019 would have been reimbursed in 2010 and 2015 (adjusted MCR).Methods and materialsThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary database was used to obtain MCR data for RO HCPCS codes in 2010, 2015, and 2019. For each code, the total allowed charge was divided by the number of submitted claims to calculate the average MCR per claim in 2010, 2015, and 2019. The 2019 billing frequency for each code was then multiplied by the inflation-adjusted average MCR for those codes in 2010 and 2015 to determine what the MCR would have been in 2010 and 2015 using 2019 dollars and utilization rates. Results were compared with actual 2019 MCR to calculate the projected difference.ResultsTotal inflation-adjusted RO MCR was $2281 million (M), $1991 M, and $1848 M in 2010, 2015, and 2019 respectively. This represents a cut of $433 M (19%) and $143 M (7%) from 2010 and 2015, respectively, to 2019. After utilization adjustment, total reimbursement was $2534 M, $2034 M, and $1848 M for 2010, 2015, and 2019, respectively, representing a cut of $686 M (27%) and $186 M (9%) from 2010 and 2015, respectively, to 2019. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment delivery and planning accounted for $917 M (36%), $670 M (33%), and $573 M (31%) of the adjusted MCR in 2010, 2015, and 2019, respectively.ConclusionsMedicare reimbursement decreased substantially from 2010 to 2019. A decline in IMRT treatment reimbursement was the primary driver of MCR decline. When considering further cuts, policymakers should consider these trends and their consequences for health care quality and access.
| S-EPMC10077845 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceCommunity-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains one of the most common indications for pediatric hospitalization in the United States, and it is frequently the focus of research and quality studies. Use of administrative data is increasingly common for these purposes, although proper validation is required to ensure valid study conclusions.ObjectiveTo validate administrative billing data for hospitalizations owing to childhood CAP.Design and settingCase-control study of 4 tertiary care, freestanding children’s hospitals in the United States.ParticipantsA total of 998 medical records of a 25% random sample of 3646 children discharged in 2010 with at least 1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code representing possible pneumonia were reviewed. Discharges (matched on date of admission) without a pneumonia-related discharge code were also examined to identify potential missed pneumonia cases. Two reference standards, based on provider diagnosis alone (provider confirmed) or in combination with consistent clinical and radiographic evidence of pneumonia (definite), were used to identify CAP.ExposureTwelve ICD-9-CM–based coding strategies, each using a combination of primary or secondary codes representing pneumonia or pneumonia-related complications. Six algorithms excluded children with complex chronic conditions.Main outcomes and measuresSensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values (NPV and PPV, respectively) of the 12 identification strategies.ResultsFor provider-confirmed CAP (n = 680), sensitivity ranged from 60.7% to 99.7%; specificity, 75.7% to 96.4%; PPV, 67.9% to 89.6%; and NPV, 82.6% to 99.8%. For definite CAP (n = 547), sensitivity ranged from 65.6% to 99.6%; specificity, 68.7% to 93.0%; PPV, 54.6% to 77.9%; and NPV, 87.8% to 99.8%. Unrestricted use of the pneumonia-related codes was inaccurate, although several strategies improved specificity to more than 90% with a variable effect on sensitivity. Excluding children with complex chronic conditions demonstrated the most favorable performance characteristics. Performance of the algorithms was similar across institutions.Conclusions and relevanceAdministrative data are valuable for studying pediatric CAP hospitalizations. The strategies presented here will aid in the accurate identification of relevant and comparable patient populations for research and performance improvement studies.
| S-EPMC3907952 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) represent a growing share of the health care workforce, but much of the care they provide cannot be observed in claims data because of indirect (or "incident to") billing, a practice in which visits provided by an NP or PA are billed by a supervising physician. If NPs and PAs bill directly for a visit, Medicare and many private payers pay 85 percent of what is paid to a physician for the same service. Some policy makers have proposed eliminating indirect billing, but the possible impact of such a change is unknown. Using a novel approach that relies on prescriptions to identify indirectly billed visits, we estimated that the number of all NP or PA visits in fee-for-service Medicare data billed indirectly was 10.9 million in 2010 and 30.6 million in 2018. Indirect billing was more common in states with laws restricting NPs' scope of practice. Eliminating indirect billing would have saved Medicare roughly $194 million in 2018, with the greatest decrease in revenue seen among smaller primary care practices, which are more likely to use this form of billing.
| S-EPMC9373851 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAs US hospital expenditures continue to rise, understanding drivers of high-severity billing for hospitalized patients among inpatient physicians is critically important.ObjectiveTo evaluate high-severity billing trends of Medicare beneficiaries treated by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists.Design setting and participantsThis cohort study used Medicare fee-for-service claims of hospitalized patients from 2009 through 2018 to compare the proportion of high-severity billing between general medicine physicians classified as hospitalists vs nonhospitalists across initial, subsequent, and discharge hospital encounters. We compared physicians within the same hospital using hospital fixed effects and adjusted for patient demographics and comorbidities. Changes in the billing practices were assessed by investigating differences in slopes using an interaction term between physician type and time. Analyses were conducted between August 2021 and January 2022.ExposuresTreatment by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists.Main outcomes and measuresHigh-severity billing for initial, subsequent, and discharge hospital encounters.ResultsThe sample included 3 121 260 and 1 855 678 Medicare beneficiaries treated by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists, respectively. In each year, mean age, proportion female, proportion Black and Hispanic dual status, and mean number of chronic conditions were similar among those treated by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists (standardized mean difference < .01). The number of hospitalists grew by 76%, from 23 390 in 2009 to 41 084 in 2018, whereas nonhospitalists decreased by 43.6% (53 758 to 30 289). The proportion of encounters performed by hospitalists increased for the initial hospital encounters (46.3% to 76%), subsequent encounters (46.8% to 76.7%), and discharge encounters (46.1% to 78.5%) over the 10-year period. The proportion of high-severity billing across the hospital, subsequent, and discharge encounters was consistently higher among hospitalists relative to nonhospitalists across all years. Compared with the trends for nonhospitalists, the proportion of high-severity billing grew by 0.46% per year (95% CI, 0.44% to 0.49%; P < .001) for initial encounters, 0.38% per year (95% CI, 0.37% to 0.39%; P < .001) for subsequent encounters, and by 1.1% per year (95% CI, 1.1% to 1.15%; P < .001) for discharge encounters among hospitalists.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries treated in hospitals, high-severity billing increased over time for hospital encounters at higher rates for hospitalists than for nonhospitalists. These differences do not appear to be explained by patient complexity. The increase in the number of hospitalists over time may be contributing to rising national costs related to hospital care.
| S-EPMC8933743 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/objectivesNo data exist regarding the validity of International Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 dementia diagnoses against a clinician-adjudicated reference standard within Medicare claims data. We examined the accuracy of claims-based diagnoses with respect to expert clinician adjudication using a novel database with individual-level linkages between electronic health record (EHR) and claims.DesignIn this retrospective observational study, two neurologists and two psychiatrists performed a standardized review of patients' medical records from January 2016 to December 2018 and adjudicated dementia status. We measured the accuracy of three claims-based definitions of dementia against the reference standard.SettingMass-General-Brigham Healthcare (MGB), Massachusetts, USA.ParticipantsFrom an eligible population of 40,690 fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare beneficiaries, aged 65 years and older, within the MGB Accountable Care Organization (ACO), we generated a random sample of 1002 patients, stratified by the pretest likelihood of dementia using administrative surrogates.InterventionNone.MeasurementsWe evaluated the accuracy (area under receiver operating curve [AUROC]) and calibration (calibration-in-the-large [CITL] and calibration slope) of three ICD-10 claims-based definitions of dementia against clinician-adjudicated standards. We applied inverse probability weighting to reconstruct the eligible population and reported the mean and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for all performance characteristics, using 10-fold cross-validation (CV).ResultsBeneficiaries had an average age of 75.3 years and were predominately female (59%) and non-Hispanic whites (93%). The adjudicated prevalence of dementia in the eligible population was 7%. The best-performing definition demonstrated excellent accuracy (CV-AUC 0.94; 95% CI 0.92-0.96) and was well-calibrated to the reference standard of clinician-adjudicated dementia (CV-CITL <0.001, CV-slope 0.97).ConclusionThis study is the first to validate ICD-10 diagnostic codes against a robust and replicable approach to dementia ascertainment, using a real-world clinical reference standard. The best performing definition includes diagnostic codes with strong face validity and outperforms an updated version of a previously validated ICD-9 definition of dementia.
| S-EPMC8373730 | biostudies-literature