A new analysis found that the four major health insurance companies have different file sizes and formats for their price transparency files. Aetna’s files are the smallest and most readable, while Cigna’s files are the largest and most difficult to read. The lack of standardization in price transparency files makes it difficult for consumers to compare prices and make informed decisions about their healthcare.
A new analysis published in Health Affairs found that payers’ price transparency files vary widely by size and number of billing codes. The analysis, conducted by David Muhlestein, Ph.D., chief research and innovation officer at Health Management Associates, compared price transparency files for the most common networks used by Aetna, Cigna, Humana, and UnitedHealthcare.
Mr. Muhlestein found that Cigna and Humana had significantly larger file sizes than Aetna and UnitedHealthcare. For example, Cigna’s file size was 1.35 terabytes, while Aetna’s was only 136 gigabytes.
“It is worth noting that as of early 2023, both Cigna and Humana have begun to produce files that are much smaller, although neither is as standardized as Aetna’s or UnitedHealthcare’s,” Dr. Muhlestein wrote.
Here is a table that summarizes the file sizes of the four major payers:
Payer | Unique billing codes | Negotiated rates | Raw file size |
---|---|---|---|
Aetna | 66,169 | 42.5 billion | 136 gigabytes |
Cigna | 2,412 | 4 billion | 1.35 terabytes |
Humana | 25,057 | 15.5 billion | 6.42 terabytes |
UnitedHealthcare | 16,929 | 4 billion | 107 gigabytes |
The analysis also found that the four major payers vary in the way they format their price transparency files. For example, Aetna’s files are in a standard format that can be easily read by consumers, while Cigna’s files are in a proprietary format that is difficult to read.
The analysis concludes that the lack of standardization in price transparency files makes it difficult for consumers to compare prices and make informed decisions about their healthcare.