Abstract
ObjectivesAmid continuously rising US healthcare costs, particularly for inpatient and surgical services, strategies to more effectively manage supply chain expenses are urgently necessary. Across industries, the ‘economy of scale’ principle indicates that larger purchasing volumes should correspond to lower prices due to ‘bulk discounts’. Even as such advantages of scale have driven health system mergers in the USA, it is not clear whether they are being achieved, including for specialised products like surgical implants which may be more vulnerable to cost inefficiency. The objective of this observational cross-sectional study was to investigate whether purchasing volumes for spinal implants was correlated with price paid.SettingUSA.ParticipantsMarket data based on pricing levels for spine implants were reviewed from industry implant price databases. Filters were applied to narrow the sample to include comparable institutions based on procedural volume, patient characteristics and geographical considerations. Information on the attributes of 619 health systems representing 12 471 provider locations was derived from national databases and analytics platforms.Primary outcome measureInstitution-specific price index paid for spinal implants, normalised to the national average price point achieved.ResultsA Spearman’s correlation test indicated a weak relationship between purchasing volume and price index paid (ρ=−0.35, p<0.001). Multivariable linear regression adjusting for institutional characteristics including type of hospital, accountable care organisation status, payer-mix, geography, number of staffed beds, number of affiliated physicians and volume of patient throughput also did not exhibit a statistically significant relationship between purchasing volume and price index performance (p=0.085).ConclusionsNational supply chain data revealed that there was no significant relationship between purchasing volume and price paid by health systems for spinal implants. These findings suggest that factors other than purchasing or patient volume are responsible for setting prices paid by health systems to surgical vendors and/or larger healthcare systems are not negotiating in a way to consistently achieve optimal pricing.
Reference49 articles.
1. Health Care Spending in the United States and Other High-Income Countries
2. The National health expenditure accounts T. National health care spending in 2016: spending and enrollment growth slow after initial coverage expansions;Hartman;Health Aff,2018
3. Makary M . We spend about half of our federal tax dollars on health care that’s ridiculous, 2019. Usa today. Available: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/09/16/spend-about-half-federal-tax-dollars-health-care-ridiculous-column/2301040001/ [Accessed March 19, 2022].
4. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services . National health expenditure accounts. Available: https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical [Accessed March 19, 2022].
5. Understanding costs of care in the operating room;Childers;JAMA Surg,2018
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献