Insurers, employers, and states increasingly encourage price transparency so that patients can compare health care prices across providers. However, the evidence on whether price transparency tools encourage patients to receive lower-cost care and reduce overall spending remains limited and mixed. We examined the experience of a large insured population that was offered a price transparency tool, focusing on a set of "shoppable" services (lab tests, office visits, and advanced imaging services). Overall, offering the tool was not associated with lower shoppable services spending. Only 12 percent of employees who were offered the tool used it in the first fifteen months after it was introduced, and use of the tool was not associated with lower prices for lab tests or office visits. The average price paid for imaging services preceded by a price search was 14 percent lower than that paid for imaging services not preceded by a price search. However, only 1 percent of those who received advanced imaging conducted a price search. Simply offering a price transparency tool is not sufficient to meaningfully decrease health care prices or spending.

To encourage patients to select high-value providers, an insurer-initiated price transparency program that focused on elective advanced imaging procedures was implemented. Patients having at least one outpatient magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan in 2010 or 2012 were divided according to their membership in commercial health plans participating in the program (the intervention group) or in nonparticipating commercial health plans (the reference group) in similar US geographic regions. Patients in the intervention group were informed of price differences among available MRI facilities and given the option of selecting different providers. For those patients, the program resulted in a $220 cost reduction (18.7 percent) per test and a decrease in use of hospital-based facilities from 53 percent in 2010 to 45 percent in 2012. Price variation between hospital and nonhospital facilities for the intervention group was reduced by 30 percent after implementation. Nonparticipating members residing in intervention areas also observed price reductions, which indicates increased price competition among providers. The program significantly reduced imaging costs. This suggests that patients select lower-price facilities when informed about available alternatives.

Purpose To describe outcomes after granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis in patients with breast cancer who received chemotherapy regimens with low-to-intermediate risk of induction of neutropenia-related hospitalization. Patients and Methods We identified 8,745 patients age ≥ 18 years from a medical and pharmacy claims database for 14 commercial US health plans. This retrospective analysis included patients with breast cancer who began first-cycle chemotherapy from 2008 to 2013 using docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC); docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab (TCH); or doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (conventional-dose AC) regimens. Primary prophylaxis (PP) was defined as G-CSF administration within 5 days of beginning chemotherapy. Outcome was neutropenia, fever, or infection-related hospitalization within 21 days of initiating chemotherapy. Multivariable regressions and number-needed-to-treat analyses were used. Results A total of 4,815 patients received TC (2,849 PP; 1,966 no PP); 2,292 patients received TCH (1,444 PP; 848 no PP); and 1,638 patients received AC (857 PP; 781 no PP) regimen. PP was associated with reduced risk of neutropenia-related hospitalization for TC (2.0% PP; 7.1% no PP; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.29; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.39) and TCH (1.3% PP; 7.1% no PP; AOR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.30), but not AC (4.7% PP; 3.8% no PP; AOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.93) regimens. For the TC regimen, 20 patients (95% CI, 16 to 26) would have to be treated for 21 days to avoid one neutropenia-related hospitalization; with the TCH regimen, 18 patients (95% CI, 13 to 25) would have to be treated. Conclusion Primary G-CSF prophylaxis was associated with low-to-modest benefit in lowering neutropenia-related hospitalization in patients with breast cancer who received TC and TCH regimens. Further evaluation is needed to better understand which patients benefit most from G-CSF prophylaxis in this setting.