Financial Viability of the No Surprises Act Independent Dispute Resolution Process: Radiology and Other Hospital-Based Specialties.

BACKGROUND. The federal No Surprises Act (NSA), designed to eliminate surprise medical billing for out-of-network (OON) care for circumstances beyond patients' control, established the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process to settle clinician-payer payment disputes for OON care. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to assess the fraction of OON claims for which radiologists and other hospital-based specialists can expect to at least break even when challenging payer-determined payments through the NSA IDR process, as a measure of the process's financial viability. METHODS. This retrospective study extracted claims from a national commercial database (Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart) for hospital-based specialties occurring on the same day as in-network emergency department (ED) visits or inpatient stays from January 2017 to December 2021. OON claims were identified. OON claims batching was simulated using IDR rules. Maximum potential recovered payments from the IDR process were estimated as the difference between the charges and the allowed amount. The percentages of claims for which the maximum potential payment and one-quarter of this amount (a more realistic payment recovery estimate) would exceed IDR fees were determined, using US$150 and US$450 fee thresholds to approximate the range of final 2024 IDR fees. These values represented the percentage of OON claims that would be financially viable candidates for IDR submission. RESULTS. Among 76,221,264 claims for hospital-based specialties associated with in-network ED visits or inpatient stays, 1,482,973 (1.9%) were OON. The maximum potential payment exceeded fee thresholds of US$150 and US$450 for 55.0% and 32.1%, respectively, of batched OON claims for radiologists and 76.8% and 61.3% of batched OON claims for all other hospital-based specialties combined. At payment of one-quarter of that amount, these values were 26.9% and 10.6%, respectively, for radiologists and 56.6% and 38.4% for all other hospital-based specialties combined. CONCLUSION. The IDR process would be financially unviable for a substantial fraction of OON claims for hospital-based specialists (more so for radiology than for other such specialties). CLINICAL IMPACT. Although the NSA enacted important patient protections, IDR fees limit clinicians' opportunities to dispute payer-determined payments and potentially undermine their bargaining power in contract negotiations. Therefore, IDR rulemaking may negatively impact patient access to in-network care.

The impact of surprise billing laws on emergency services.

Numerous states implemented laws to protect emergency patients from surprise out-of-network medical bills. We investigated the effects of the state laws on emergency clinician reimbursements, charges, network participation, and potential surprise billing episodes. We did not find consistent evidence of effects on prices or charges. However, the state laws resulted in increased network participation and a reduction in potential surprise billing episodes. Our results suggest that the federal No Surprises Act, which is similar to many of the state laws, is unlikely to lead to price increases, but may benefit patients through increased provider network participation and alignment.

Variability in Excess Lobectomy Billing Among US Thoracic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Transparency in physician billing practices in the United States is lacking. Often, charges may vary substantially between providers and excess charges may be passed on to the patient. In this study, we evaluate Medicare charges and payments for minimally invasive lobectomy to obtain a sense of national billing practices and evaluate for predictors of higher charges. METHODS: The 2018 Medicare Provider Utilization Data was queried to identify surgeons submitting charges for Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Lobectomy. Excess charges were determined by each provider. Additional demographic variables were collected including geographic region for general surgery and cardiothoracic surgery training, years in practice, and current practice setting. A multivariate gamma regression was utilized to determine predictors of high billing practices. RESULTS: A total of 307 unique providers submitted charges ranging from $1,104 to $25,128 with a median of $4,265. The average Medicare Payment amount ranged from $163 to $1,409, with a median of $1,056. Male surgeons were estimated to charge 1.3 times more than female surgeons, while those in an academic setting were estimated to charge 1.4 times more than private practice (p < 0.01). Surgeons practicing in the South or West were estimated to charge 0.76 and 0.81 times as much as those practicing in the Northeast (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Billing practices vary widely across the United States. Charges submitted to Medicare likely represent a provider's charges across all payers. In today's healthcare economy, it is important for patients to understand the true cost of care and for providers to be mindful of reasonable and appropriate charges.

Variation in Public Support for Government Action on Unexpected Medical Bills.

CONTEXT: Nearly half of the adults in the United States have received an unexpected medical bill in recent years. While government, provider, and insurance policies related to unexpected medical expenses receive attention in the media, this study focuses on variation in public support. METHODS: The study employs two multifactor survey vignette experiments to detect how different features of common health care scenarios that result in costly medical expenses influence the public's sympathy for the patient, perceived fairness of the medical costs, and demand for government action. FINDINGS: The results point to out-of-pocket cost, severity of the treatment, and the patient's insurance situation as important for public opinion. The public is significantly more supportive of government action when the costs are high and out of the patient's control; in contrast, respondents are generally less sympathetic toward patients described as uninsured or who seek out more costly providers. CONCLUSIONS: The findings underscore the sensitivity of health care attitudes to framing effects, which may occur when media choose how to cover health care costs. The results also point to a potential mismatch in legislation that narrowly addresses "surprise billing," with public support for government addressing disproportionate costs across a broader range of scenarios.

Patient cost consciousness in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: 'Surprise billing', or the phenomenon of unexpected coverage gaps in which patients receiving out-of-network medical bills after what they thought was in-network care, has been a major focus of policymakers and advocacy groups recently, particularly in the Emergency Department (ED) setting, where patients' ability to choose a provider is exceedingly limited. The No Surprises Act is the legislative culmination to address "surprise bills," with the aim of promoting price transparency as a solution for billing irregularities. However, the knowledge and perceptions of patients regarding emergency care price transparency, particularly the degree to which ED patients are cost conscious is unknown. Accordingly, we sought to quantify that perception by measuring patients' direct predictions for the cost of their care. METHODS: We conducted an in-person survey of patients in Emergency Departments (EDs) over an 10-month period at two campuses within a large academic hospital system in southern Connecticut. We surveyed a convenience sample of patients at the bedside regarding demographics, care seeking perceptions and their estimates of the total and out-of-pocket costs for their ED care. Survey data was linked to institutional hospital finance datasets including actual charges and payments. We then later obtained the actual costs and billed amounts and compared these to the patients' estimates using a paired t-test. We also analyzed results according to certain patient demographics. RESULTS: A total of 600 patients were approached for survey, and data from 455 were available for the final analysis. On average, patients overestimated the cost of their care by $2484 and overestimated out-of-pocket cost by $144; both of these results met statistical significance (p < .005). Patients were better able to predict both total and out-of-pocket costs if they were: college educated or above; unemployed or retired; aged 65 or older; or had private insurance. Uninsured patients could better predict total cost but not out-of-pocket costs. One in 4 patients reported considering the cost of care prior to visiting the ED. Only 12 patients reported trying to look up that price before coming. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to our knowledge that sought to quantify how patients perceive the cost of acute, unscheduled care in the ED. We found that ED patients generally do not consider the price before going to the ED, and subsequently overestimate the negotiated total costs of acute, unscheduled emergency care as well as their out-of-pocket responsibility for care. Certain demographics are less predictive of this association. Notably, patients with Medicare/Medicaid and those with high school education or below were of the furthest off in predicting the actual cost of care. This lends credence to the established trend of patients' limited knowledge of the total cost of healthcare; moreover, that they overestimate the cost of their care could serve as a barrier to accessing that care particularly in more vulnerable groups. We hope that this finding adds useful information to policymakers in sculpting future legislation around surprise billing.

Surprise Out-of-Network Bills for Hand and Upper Extremity Trauma Patients.

PURPOSE: Patients may receive surprise out-of-network bills even when they present to in-network facilities. Surprise bills are common following emergency care. We sought to characterize and determine risk factors for surprise billing in hand and upper extremity trauma patients in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We used IBM MarketScan data to evaluate hand and upper extremity trauma patients who received care in the ED from 2010 to 2017. Our primary outcome was the surprise billing incidence, defined as encounters in in-network EDs with out-of-network claims. We used descriptive and bivariate analyses to characterize surprise billing and used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate independent factors associated with surprise billing. RESULTS: Of 710,974 ED encounters, 97,667 (14%) involved surprise billing. The incidence decreased from 26% in 2010 to 11% in 2017. Mean coinsurance payments were higher for surprise billing encounters and had double the growth from 2010 to 2017 compared to those without surprise billing. Receiving care from different provider types-especially therapists, radiologists, and pathologists, as well as hand surgeons-was associated with significantly higher odds of surprise billing. Transfer to another facility was not significantly associated with surprise billing. CONCLUSIONS: Although the incidence of surprise billing decreased, more than 10% of patients treated in an ED for hand trauma remain at risk. Coinsurance for surprise billing encounters increased by twice as much as encounters without surprise billing. Patients requiring services from therapists, radiologists, pathologists, and hand surgeons were at greater risk for surprise bills. The federal No Surprises Act, passed in 2020, targets surprise billing and may help address some of these issues. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Many hand and upper extremity patients requiring ED care receive surprise bills from various sources that result in higher out-of-pocket costs.

Understanding Surprise Out-of-Network Billing in Hand and Upper Extremity Care.

Surprise billing occurs when insured patients receive unexpected out-of-network charges and fees even when the emergency department, facility, or primary physician who provided care is in their insurance network. This issue is particularly relevant for hand surgery. The multidisciplinary nature of hand care and the number of ancillary services involved result in various levels at which out-of-network billing can be introduced, even when the hand surgeon is in-network for the patient. In addition, surprise billing is often associated with emergency department encounters, elective surgeries, and ambulance and helicopter transfers. In this article, we review surprise billing as it pertains to hand surgery. Little is known about surprise billing in hand care; however, we believe that these practices may substantially affect the patient population. We define key elements of surprise billing, review the literature, discuss the relevance and potential of surprise billing in hand surgery in various settings, and provide an overview of the status of health policy surrounding this practice. It is imperative for hand surgery as a field to understand the prevalence, operationalization, and policies of surprise billing better to prevent the exploitation of patients.

Radiologists' Out-of-Network Billing Trends, 2007 to 2021.

PURPOSE: Given the financial hardships of surprise billing for patients, the aim of this study was to assess the degree to which radiologists effectively participate in commercial insurance networks by examining the trend in the share of radiologists' imaging claims that are out of network (OON). METHODS: A retrospective study over a 15-year period (2007-2021) was conducted using claims from Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database to assess the share of radiologists' imaging claims that are OON. Radiologists' annual OON rate was assessed overall as well as for claims associated with inpatient stays and emergency department (ED) visits. Rates were assessed for all imaging studies as well as by modality. Linear regression was conducted to assess OON rate time trends. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2021, 5,039,142 of radiologists' imaging claims (6.3%) were OON. This rate declined from 12.6% in 2007 to 1.1% in 2021. Over the study period, the OON rate was 5.0% during an inpatient stay and 2.1% on the same day as an ED visit that did not lead to an inpatient admission. The linear trend in the overall OON rate declined 0.74 percentage points annually (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.90 to -0.58 percentage points) over the study period. Likewise, the annual declines were 0.54 percentage points (95% CI, -0.71 to -0.36) and 0.26 percentage points (95% CI, -0.33 to -0.20 percentage points) for imaging claims associated with inpatient stays and ED visits, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists' imaging claims that are OON has significantly declined from 2007 to a minimal level in 2021. This may indicate effective negotiations between radiologists and commercial payers and new state-level surprise billing laws.

Surprise billing in intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalizations.

Intensive care unit (ICU) care is expensive for patients and providers, and utilization and spending on ICU resources have increased. The No Surprises Act, passed in 2022, specifically prohibits balance billing by ICU specialists (intensivists) for emergency and most non-emergency care. The potential economic impact of this remains unclear, given few data exist on the magnitude of balance billing in the ICU. Using the MarketScan Commercial (IBM) database, we studied hospitalizations in which ICU care was provided ("ICU hospitalizations") between 2010 and 2019. Hospitalizations were characterized as fully in-network, fully out-of-network, or "mixed" (contained both in- and out-of-network services). The share of "mixed" hospitalizations among all ICU hospitalizations rose from 26% to 33% over the study period. Over half of these mixed hospitalizations contained out-of-network services specifically delivered within the ICU. Total hospitalization spending averaged $81 047, with ICU spending averaging $15 799. On average, 11% of ICU spending within these hospitalizations was out-of-network. Patients were plausibly balance-billed in approximately one-third of ICU hospitalizations, for thousands of dollars per hospitalization. Given that the No Surprises Act prevents this type of balance billing, the portended revenue loss may lead to changes in provider negotiations with insurers concerning network status and prices, which could affect the care patients receive.

Rapid Review of "No Surprise" Medical Billing in the United States: Stakeholder Perceptions and Challenges.

Surprise medical bills received after care delivery in both emergency and non-emergency situations for out-of-network (OON) or other contractual health plan regulations adds additional stress upon the care guarantor, most often the patient. The passing and continued implementation of the federal No Surprises Act (NSA) and related state-level legislation continues to influence the processes of care delivery in the United States. This rapid review evaluated the literature specific to surprise medical billing in the United States since the passing of the No Surprise Act, guided by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocol. A total of 33 articles were reviewed by the research team and the results demonstrate industry stakeholder perceptions related to two primary industry themes (constructs) surrounding surprise billing: healthcare stakeholder perspectives and medical claim dispute (arbitration) processes. Further investigation identified sub-constructs for each: the practice of balance-billing patients for OON care and healthcare provider, and facility equitable reimbursement challenges (primary theme 1), and arbitration observations and challenges surrounding (a) the NSA medical dispute process, (b) state-level arbitration processes and perceptions, and (c) use of the Medicare fee schedule as a benchmark for arbitration decisions (primary theme 2). The results indicate the need for formative policy improvement initiatives to address the generation of surprise billing.

Measuring private equity penetration and consolidation in emergency medicine and anesthesiology.

Private equity-backed staffing companies in anesthesia and emergency medicine, as well as those owned by publicly traded companies, gained notoriety for driving surprise billing-a practice where patients unexpectedly treated by an out-of-network provider can be billed for the difference between the provider's charge and what their insurer pays. Yet, little is known about the evolution of private equity and publicly traded company investment in these specialties. In this study, we construct a novel dataset identifying the ownership structure of anesthesia and emergency medicine physician groups to document trends in consolidation and the growing role of private equity and publicly traded companies. From 2009 to 2019, we found substantial increases in local market concentration in each specialty and that physician groups owned by private equity or publicly traded companies grew from 3.2% and 8.6% of the national anesthesia and emergency medicine markets, respectively, to 18.8% and 22.0%.

Past experiences with surprise medical bills drive issue knowledge, concern and attitudes toward federal policy intervention.

Scholars and journalists have devoted considerable attention to understanding the circumstances in which Americans receive surprise medical bills. Previous research on this issue has focused on the scope of the problem, including the conditions that are most likely to lead to surprise bills. However, the existing literature has almost exclusively relied on claims data, limiting our understanding of consumer experiences and attitudes toward policy changes to address surprise billing. Using a survey administered to a nationally representative sample of 4998 Americans, we analyze consumer experiences with surprise billing, knowledge of the issue, how concerned Americans are about receiving surprise bills and how past experiences influence policy preferences toward federal action on surprise billing. Our analysis demonstrates that knowledge and concern about surprise billing are the highest among the educated and those who have previously received a surprise bill. These factors also predict support for federal policy action, with high levels of support for federal policy action across the population, including among both liberals and conservatives. However, more detailed federal policy proposals receive significantly less support among Americans, suggesting that stand-alone policy action may not be viable. Our results show bipartisan support among American consumers for federal action on surprise billing in the abstract but no consistent views on specific policy proposals.

Markup on Services Provided to Medicare Beneficiaries by Otolaryngologists in 2017: Implications for Surprise Billing.

The degree of markup between provider charges and Medicare prices reflects the potential balance bill for out-of-network commercially insured patients. Using publicly available Medicare data, we performed a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of markup ratios (MRs; ie, the ratio of submitted charges to Medicare-allowed prices) for services commonly performed by otolaryngologists in 2017. Median MRs were as follows: 2.9 (interquartile range, 2.0-4.3) in facility settings (eg, hospital) and 2.1 (interquartile range, 1.7-2.9) in nonfacility settings (eg, physician office). Among the 10 highest-markup procedures performed by otolaryngologists in facility and nonfacility settings, there was no consistent increase in median MRs between 2012 and 2017 (compound annual growth rates, -4.6% for labyrinthotomy to 24.6% for ultrasound-guided biopsy). Median MRs for these procedures were not consistently lower in states with surprise billing protection laws. These findings may reflect the comparatively low potential to "balance bill" patients for elective otolaryngologic services and the limitations of state-level protections against surprise billing.

The Surprise Insurance Gap: History, Context, and Proposed Solutions.

Affordability of care is a major concern for many in the United States. Part of the affordability of care issue is unanticipated medical bills. A 2018 poll found that unexpected medical costs were the public's greatest affordability concern, ahead of prescription drug costs and even food or rent or mortgage. An important cause of unexpected medical bills is the surprise insurance network gap. The term "surprise billing" is commonly used to describe this problem of unanticipated out-of-network (OON) care, though this is a misnomer because it is actually a "surprise insurance gap." This gap can have significant consequences for patients and families. Hospital-based specialties like radiology have been implicated in the issue. Part of solving this problem includes determining an appropriate reimbursement for physicians who provide unanticipated OON care to patients. The two most commonly proposed methods to determine insurance company reimbursement to providers for OON services are use of a benchmark value and alternative dispute resolution. There is risk in trying to "price set" with a benchmark value. Establishing a predetermined value for services to mitigate against unexpected bills could have unintended and significant consequences, including disrupting good-faith negotiations between insurance companies and providers and impacting access to care. The data indicate that an alternative dispute resolution process can protect patients, lower the frequency of unexpected OON bills, and reduce costs.

Most Patients Undergoing Ground And Air Ambulance Transportation Receive Sizable Out-Of-Network Bills.

"Surprise" out-of-network bills have come under close scrutiny, and while ambulance transportation is known to be a large component of the problem, its impact is poorly understood. We measured the prevalence and financial impact of out-of-network billing in ground and air ambulance transportation. For members of a large national insurance plan in 2013-17, 71 percent of all ambulance rides involved potential surprise bills. For both ground and air ambulances, out-of-network charges were substantially greater than in-network prices, resulting in median potential surprise bills of $450 for ground transportation and $21,698 for air transportation. Though out-of-network air ambulance bills were larger, out-of-network ground ambulance bills were more common, with an aggregate impact of $129 million per year. Out-of-network air ambulance bills averaged $91 million per year, rising from $41 million in 2013 to $143 million in 2017. Federal proposals to limit surprise out-of-network billing should incorporate protections for patients undergoing ground or air ambulance transportation.

Incorrect Provider Directories Associated With Out-Of-Network Mental Health Care And Outpatient Surprise Bills.

Mental health services are up to six times more likely than general medical services to be delivered by an out-of-network provider, in part because many psychiatrists do not accept commercial insurance. Provider directories help patients identify in-network providers, although directory information is often not accurate. We conducted a national survey of privately insured patients who received specialty mental health treatment. We found that 44 percent had used a mental health provider directory and that 53 percent of these patients had encountered directory inaccuracies. Those who encountered inaccuracies were more likely (40 percent versus 20 percent) to be treated by an out-of-network provider and four times more likely (16 percent versus 4 percent) to receive a surprise outpatient out-of-network bill (that is, they did not initially know that a provider was out of network). A federal standard for directory accuracy, stronger enforcement of existing laws with insurers liable for directory errors, and additional monitoring by regulators may be needed.