State Surprise Billing Laws Impact Out-of-Network Provider Charges

 

Provider charges for out-of-network care increased by $1,157 after the passage of state surprise billing laws that allow arbitrators to consider provider charges in a surprise billing dispute.


State surprise billing laws that allow arbitrators to consider provider charges when determining out-of-network payment amounts for surprise medical bills led to an increase in billed charges for out-of-network care, according to a Health Affairs study.

Prior to the federal No Surprises Act, many states passed laws protecting patients from surprise billing. They also established a process to determine the out-of-network rate when surprise billing occurred.

Under state surprise billing laws, payment rates are usually determined by a payment standard or an independent dispute resolution (IDR) process. Some state laws allow arbitrators to use IDR processes that consider provider charges.

The No Surprises Act, which went into effect on January 1, 2022, prohibits arbitrators from considering providers’ billed charges when determining out-of-network rates. However, states with existing surprise billing laws that allow this can continue to consider provider charges during the IDR process.

In these states, providers may increase their charges to boost their out-of-network reimbursement.

Researchers looked at provider charges for out-of-network care in New York, where the state law uses an IDR process that ties payment rates to charges, and California, where the law uses a payment standard tied to in-network prices to determine reimbursement rates. Researchers also looked at comparison states that had no surprise billing laws.

The study reflects claims data between July 2011 and March 2020 for more than 3.5 million members of Elevance Health (formerly Anthem, Inc.) who had a nonemergency inpatient hospitalization. The study sample included 28,245 surprise bill scenarios from New York, 31,718 scenarios from California, and 60,810 scenarios from the comparison states—Kentucky, Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana, Georgia, Virginia, and Colorado.

Before the state surprise billing laws, classified as the pre-period, provider charges were similar in New York, California, and the comparison group. However, provider charges changed in both states after the laws were passed, referred to as the post-period.

Provider charges in New York increased by $1,157 in the post-period. This signified a 24 percent increase from the pre-period average of $4,864. In contrast, provider charges decreased by $752 in California during the post-period, indicating a 25 percent reduction from the pre-period average of $3,038.

Assistant surgeon out-of-network charges in New York grew substantially after state surprise billing laws were passed, increasing by $4,358 (43 percent). There were no significant changes in assistant surgeon charges in California compared with other states, the study noted.

After provider-level panel regressions that took the mean charge per provider that maintains the composition of out-of-network providers in the pre- and post-periods, New York charges rose by $815 (10 percent), and California charges decreased by $474 (15 percent).

Similarly, after a hospital-level panel regression, charges increased by $1,009 in New York and fell by $900 in California.

Results were similar when using the law’s effective date instead of the passage date, with New York charges growing by $1,157 and California charges decreasing by $929.

It is important for policymakers to understand how considering billed charges during arbitration for surprise bills can raise out-of-network costs for consumers.

“Where provider charges are an input to an arbitrator’s decision, and because charges are set by providers and not insurers, it is possible that over time, providers who might enter arbitration could selectively increase charges for infrequently performed (within a given geographic market) nonemergency procedure codes to receive higher payments during an independent dispute resolution process,” researchers wrote.

New York has begun to align its state surprise billing law with the No Surprises Act, but it is not known yet whether provider charges will still be a part of the IDR process. Other states, including New Jersey, have maintained their laws that tie out-of-network payment rates to provider charges and override the No Surprises Act.


By Victoria Bailey

Popular posts from this blog

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Ohio Medicaid is upgrading its provider enrollment system

Effective August 1, 2022, ODM will not be accepting new provider enrollment applications or continue any in-progress enrollment applications through the MITS Provider Enrollment System. Details on the process for enrollment of new OhioRISE providers from August 1 to October 2022 will be communicated prior to August 1st. Effective October 1, 2022, all provider enrollment applications must be submitted using Ohio Medicaid’s new Provider Network Management (PNM) portal. After its implementation, the PNM portal will be the single point for providers to complete provider enrollment, centralized credentialing, and provider self-service. Provider Network Management Portal and Centralized Credentialing Beginning on October 1, 2022 the Provider Network Management (PNM) portal will accept Medicaid provider enrollments and carry out centralized credentialing functions. This transition will reduce administrative burden for providers and enable providers to focus on the more meaningful and importan...
Read more

CO Supreme Court: Hospital Cannot Enforce $229K Surprise Bill

The surprise bill stemmed from the hospital’s chargemaster rate, but the hospital did not provide this information to the patient before her surgery. The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that a woman is not liable for her $229,000 surprise bill from a Centura Health hospital, as the hospital did not disclose the amount to her before the procedure. Lisa Melody French received spinal surgery at St. Anthony North Hospital in Westminster, Colorado, in 2014. The hospital initially estimated that the surgery would cost $57,601, with French responsible for paying $1,337 out-of-pocket. But the cost increased to $229,112 following the surgery. According to the court document, the new price tag reflected Centura’s full chargemaster rates for the surgery. Additionally, Centura determined that it had misread French’s insurance card and she was an out-of-network patient. French was left with the nearly $230,000 bill after her insurance paid $73,597 of the new charge, which was over $300,000. Fren...
Read more

Governor DeWine Announces Local Government Payments from National Opioid Settlement Begin

Image
    Ohio Governor Mike DeWine announced Friday that the first payments of funds to local governments from the OneOhio settlement with national opioid distributors have been made electronically. Local governments will determine how to use the payments, totaling more than $8.6 million, to best combat the opioid epidemic in their own communities. Following these initial payments, governments will continue receiving payments from the settlement over the next 18 years. In 2017, as Ohio Attorney General, Governor DeWine was one of the first in the nation to sue opioid makers and drug distributors for their role in flooding the market with massive amounts of highly addictive opioids. A complete list of payments made to eligible and participating political subdivisions may be found at https://nationalopioidsettlement.com/states/ohio/ . The list also indicates if the payment was made directly to the entity or, if less than $500, was redirected to the county. Questions about payments c...
Read more