Experts blame insurance regulators for not ensuring the adequacy of healthcare networks that include hospital-based physicians, such as pathologists and radiologists
According to a recent study, clinical laboratories, anatomic pathologists, radiologists, and anesthesiologists top the list of providers who bill patients for the difference between what they charge for their services and a hospital’s contracted reimbursement rates.
This so-called “balance-billing” not only causes hardship for patients and consumers already shouldering a larger portion of their healthcare costs, but poses a public relations concern for service providers across the US healthcare industry as well.
Following public outcry from patients who received care at what they believed to be in-network medical facilities, only then to be surprised by bills from their care providers for the remaining balance not covered by their insurance, the practice of balance billing has drawn increased scrutiny from state and federal officials.
Medical Laboratory Charges Top Reason for Surprise Bills
In their report, NORC notes that of those surveyed, 57% (567 individuals) acknowledged receiving a surprise medical bill they thought would be covered by their health insurance.
When asked about the network status of the doctor who provided care during the episode related to the surprise bill, 79% responded that charges were not for doctors being out-of-network for their insurance plan. Medical laboratory-related charges were near the top of reasons patients received surprise bills, with 51% of individuals receiving bills related to “a laboratory test, like a blood test.”
Such surprise medical bills received frequent coverage in 2018. This has led many states to enact or discuss legislation to address the practice and offer cost protections for patients.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) even included a Request for Information related to surprise billing and price transparency in their “Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Medicare Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) and Long Term Acute Care Hospital (LTCH) Prospective Payment System Proposed Rule.”
Thus far, however, little change to existing regulations and contract systems has been enacted to protect patients or help laboratories and other service providers offer alternative payment solutions for patients.
There also are few requirements for insurance providers to verify that plans include sufficient numbers of in-network service providers when offering plans to consumers.
States Move to Change Trends While Patients Continue to Experience Bill Shock
States are beginning to address surprise billing concerns ahead of action by insurance regulators and the federal government. In December, the Arizona Department of Insurance issued a news release outlining the agency’s plan to allow for arbitration questions for surprise out-of-network bills.
And, California effectively banned out-of-network billing from groups within in-network facilities in 2017 with Assembly Bill 72. However, the state only finalized reimbursement rates for service providers and patients affected by surprise bills in January of this year according to Capital Public Radio.
Many of these state-level regulations do not account for the complexity of creating rules based on emergency or non-emergency care or the insurance providers in question. For example, Assembly Bill 72 does not apply to “Medicare, Medi-Cal, out-of-state plans, self-insured employer plans, or other products regulated by federal law,” according to a news release from the California Society of Anesthesiologists.
Finding Fair Solutions for Both Patients and Care Providers
Speaking with Kaiser Health News about a report of a man in Texas receiving a $109,000 surprise bill related to treatment after a heart attack, Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas said, “This is a nationwide problem, and we need a nationwide solution. We have a system where the patient, the most vulnerable person of all those involved, is caught between the insurer and the healthcare provider … these problems are solvable.”
Modern Healthcarerecently covered how some hospitals are now requiring physicians to go in-network as a provision of their contracts. However, they also note this approach disadvantages physicians and shifts reimbursement negotiation power to insurers. Should hospitals take a similar approach with medical laboratory specialists, it could create similar concerns.
While surprise medical bills create added hardship for patients and pose reputational and reimbursement concerns for clinical laboratories and healthcare providers, creating regulations that establish effective protections while also protecting the financials of service providers continues to prove difficult.
Speaking with Modern Healthcare, Dan Sacco, Vice President for Strategic Affairs and Payer Relations at Boca Raton Regional Hospital, summarized concerns concisely, saying, “We’re trying to protect [consumers], but we’re also trying to be reasonable business partners as well.”
Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Medicare Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) and Long Term Acute Care Hospital (LTCH) Prospective Payment System Proposed Rule, and Request for Information
AB 72: What the New “Out-of-Network” Law Means