Only about a third of the hospitals surveyed are in full compliance with giving public access to prices, the watchdog group contends, but the AHA disputes its methodology
It’s been almost four years since the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) enacted its Hospital Price Transparency rule which requires hospitals—including their medical laboratories—to make their prices available and easily accessible to the public. But according to a 2024 report from PatientRightsAdvocate.org (PRA), just 34.5% of reviewed hospitals are fully compliant with the transparency rule. That’s a slight decrease from the 36% compliance rate the PRA listed in its 2023 report, the watchdog group stated in a blog post.
Released on Feb. 29, this was the group’s sixth semi-annual hospital price transparency report since the CMS rule took effect in 2021.
The rule “requires hospitals to post all prices online, easily accessible and searchable, in the form of (i) a single machine-readable standard charges file for all items, services, and drugs by all payers and all plans, the de-identified minimum and maximum negotiated rates, and all discounted cash prices, as well as (ii) prices for the 300 most common shoppable services either as a consumer-friendly standard charges display listing actual prices or, alternatively, as a price estimator tool,” the report states.
The required viewable prices are to be for, among others, medical imaging, clinical laboratory testing, and outpatient procedures such as a colonoscopies, etc.
“With full transparency, consumers can benefit from competition to make informed decisions, protect from overcharges, billing errors, and fraud, and lower their costs,” the report states. “Employer and union plans can use pricing and claims data to improve their plan designs and direct members to lower cost, high-quality facilities. However, continued noncompliance impedes this ability.”
At any time, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) could decide to file charges against a hospital or a clinical laboratory for not posting their prices on their websites in compliance with the federal rule. Such an action by DOJ officials would be to specifically put the entire industry on notice that there will be consequences for non-compliance.
The PRA’s report provides hospitals and clinical laboratories with a reminder that consumer watchdogs are also monitoring compliance.
“Our comprehensive study of 2,000 hospitals indicates nearly two-thirds (65.5%) of hospitals reviewed continue failing to fully comply with the rule, yet the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has only fined fourteen hospitals for noncompliance out of the thousands found to not be meeting all of the rule’s requirements. When hospitals don’t post their prices, they can charge whatever they want,” wrote PRA Founder and Chairman Cynthia Fisher (above) in a letter to President Biden. Hospital medical laboratories are also required to post their prices for tests. (Photo copyright: PatientRightsAdvocate.org.)
To compile their report, PRA analysts examined the websites of 2,000 US hospitals between September 3, 2023, and January 13, 2023, and found that 1,311, or 65.5%, were not in full compliance, mostly due to “missing or significantly incomplete pricing data,” the report states.
More than 6,000 licensed hospitals operate in the US, the report notes. The group said it focused on hospitals owned by the largest US health systems.
Among the notable findings:
The 2023 report found that 98% of Kaiser Permanente’s 42 hospitals were in full compliance with the rule, but in the 2024 study, none were compliant because the hospitals began posting multiple files instead of a single file.
In total, 103 hospitals rated as noncompliant in the previous report were found to be compliant in the new analysis. Conversely, 135 hospitals previously rated as compliant were listed as noncompliant in the 2024 report.
The report lauded three hospitals for posting “exemplary files” that were “easily accessible, downloadable, machine-readable, and including all negotiated rates by payer and plan.” Those were Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, Mass.; Christus Santa Rosa Medical Center in San Antonio; and UW Health University Hospital in Madison, Wis.
In its discussion of the findings, PRA called on CMS to step up enforcement of the pricing transparency rule. The group also wants the government to close what it describes as the “estimator tool loophole,” which allows hospitals to list non-binding price estimates and price ranges instead of concrete prices.
“Price estimator tools do not achieve the goals of price transparency policy and fundamentally undermine the intent of the regulations,” the PRA’s report contends.
In response to the 2023 PRA report, AHA Group Vice President for Public Policy Molly Smith issued the following statement, “Once again, Patient Rights Advocate has put out a report that blatantly misconstrues, ignores, and mischaracterizes hospitals’ compliance with federal price transparency regulations. The AHA has repeatedly debunked point-by-point Patient Rights Advocate’s intentionally misleading ‘reports’ on price transparency.”
Citing CMS data, Smith said that as of 2022, 70% of US hospitals had complied with two key federal rules:
One requiring hospitals to post machine-readable files with pricing information.
The other mandating a list of prices for at least 300 “shoppable” services.
More than 80% of hospitals had complied with at least one of the rules, she contended in an AHA press release.
Speaking to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, PRA Founder and Chairman Cynthia Fisher said her group performs a more in-depth study of pricing data compared with CMS.
“They did not do a comprehensive review,” she told the publication. “We do a deep dive for full compliance.”
The PRA study came on the heels of a January report from Turquoise Health that offered a rosier assessment of hospital compliance, albeit with different criteria. According to the Turquoise report, as of Dec. 15, 2023:
90.7% of 6,357 US hospitals had posted machine-readable files,
83.1% posted information about negotiated rates, and
77.3% posted cash rates.
The Turquoise Health end-to-end price transparency platform uses a 5-point system to rate the quality of hospitals’ machine-readable files and said that more than 50% scored five stars. Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists may find it timely to review their lab organization’s compliance with this federal price transparency rule.
New ‘simple’ pricing scheme will provide transparency and value to all stakeholders, says company’s Chief Pharmacy Officer
Woonsocket, R.I.-based CVS Health (NYSE:CVS) is planning to scrap what it says is an old-school prescription reimbursement model and turn to a new way to price prescription medications at its 9,000 CVS pharmacies nationwide. Why is this relevant for clinical laboratory and pathology managers? It shows the disruption that is ongoing in healthcare.
Like clinical laboratories, retail pharmacies have significant reimbursement, competition, and labor challenges to address. But unique to retail pharmacies is the emergence of pharmacy benefit management (PBM) companies that work between health insurance plans and drug makers.
“National pharmacy chains found themselves disintermediated from providing prescriptions to patients by pharmacy benefit management (PBM) companies. By 2021, PBMs had captured $484 billion of the total prescription drug spending of $576.9 billion. That meant PBMs controlled 84% of the prescription drug market! That caused retail pharmacies to look for new sources of revenue,” noted Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report.
This arrangement may be motivating retail pharmacy companies to seek ways to recover the volume lost to PBMs.
CVS’ new CostVantage model will work with a formula based on how much CVS paid for the drug, a set markup over those costs, and a fee for pharmacy services to fill the prescription, according to a news release. Some experts and publications have compared the change to the approach used by the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company.
CVS Health expects to start CostVantage in 2024 before introducing it to PBMs for commercial payers in 2025.
CVS is “committed to lowering drug pricing,” CVS Health Chief Executive Officer Karen Lynch (above), CVS Health’s President and Chief Executive Officer, told CNBC. “What this (the new model) does is it essentially aligns the economics of our pricing for drugs to what consumers will pay at the pharmacy counter,” she added. Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists should understand that this new pricing strategy may be an attempt by CVS to win back prescription business lost to pharmacy benefit management companies. (Photo copyright: Rick Burn/Wikipedia.)
CVS Aims for Value and Transparency
CVS Health’s leaders believe it is time for a change in how the company’s pharmacies are reimbursed by PBMs and other payers.
Generic drugs dispensed in CVS pharmacies reached 90%. “That limits the capacity or the amount of value remaining through the higher levels of generic dispensing,” he said.
Also branded drugs have risen in price about 40% since 2019, leading to “higher costs for patients, our customers’ plans, and PBM plan sponsors.”
“This model has reached an inflection point that is just ripe for change,” Shah said. “We’re changing this outdated reimbursement model that made sense for the last decade, but no longer works today or in the future. We’re introducing a new simple model that provides value for all stakeholders across the supply chain in a much more simple, transparent, and comprehensive way,” he continued.
Cost-Plus Plans versus Retail Drug Prices
Fierce Healthcare compared CVS CostVantage to the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company, which claims it offers prescription drugs at prices below traditional pharmacies and openly shares with customers the “15% markup over its cost, plus pharmacy fees.”
Some examples on the company’s website include: Abiraterone acetate (generic for Zytiga), a prostate cancer treatment. It is priced at $33.50, compared to $1,093 retail. Cost Plus Drug Company says its costs are:
Manufacturing: $24.60
15% markup: $3.90
Pharmacy labor fee: $5.00
Another drug offered is canagliflozin (generic for Invokana), a type 2 diabetes medication, which sells for $245.92, compared to $676.14 retail. Cost Plus Drug Company says its costs are:
Fein predicts there will be more cost-plus models by retail pharmacies. “Other large pharmacies will likely follow CVS with attempts to force payers and PBMs to accept some form of cost-plus reimbursement,” he wrote.
Fein noted pharmacies prefer cost-plus models for reasons including the “stripping away of complexity and hidden cross-subsidies. … For a pharmacy, the same PBM would pay the same price for the same prescription regardless of the PBM’s arrangement with different plan sponsors.”
Turbulent Retail Pharmacy Market
CVS has also been dealing with limited growth, pharmacist labor relations issues, and a decline in COVID-19 testing, Healthcare Dive reported.
Meanwhile, pharmacies have been closing store sites and affiliated physician practices. CVS announced plans to close 900 stores between 2022 and 2024, according to a news release.
Rite Aid Corporation, Philadelphia, announced last year that it had filed for bankruptcy and may eventually close 400 to 500 of its 2,100 stores.
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Deerfield, Ill., intends to close 150 US and 300 United Kingdom locations, according to its former Chief Financial Officer James Kehoe’s remarks in a third quarter 2023 earnings call transcribed by Motley Fool.
The turbulence in the retail pharmacy market is another sign of ongoing disruption in healthcare. Long-established sectors are experiencing market shifts that are eroding their access to patients and ability to generate adequate profits.
Understanding how pharmacies approach these issues may help medical laboratory and pathology managers develop strategies for adding value to their relationships with healthcare providers and insurance plans.
Palmetto GBA’s Chief Medical Officer will cover how clinical laboratories billing for genetic testing should prepare for Z-Codes at the upcoming Executive War College in New Orleans
After multiple delays, UnitedHealthcare (UHC) commercial plans will soon require clinical laboratories to use Z-Codes when submitting claims for certain molecular diagnostic tests. Several private insurers, including UHC, already require use of Z-Codes in their Medicare Advantage plans, but beginning June 1, UHC will be the first to mandate use of the codes in its commercial plans as well. Molecular, anatomic, and clinical pathologist Gabriel Bien-Willner, MD, PhD, who oversees the coding system and is Chief Medical Officer at Palmetto GBA, expects that other private payers will follow.
“A Z-Code is a random string of characters that’s used, like a barcode, to identify a specific service by a specific lab,” Bien-Willner explained in an interview with Dark Daily. By themselves, he said, the codes don’t have much value. Their utility comes from the DEX Diagnostics Exchange registry, “where the code defines a specific genetic test and everything associated with it: The lab that is performing the test. The test’s intended use. The analytes that are being measured.”
The registry also contains qualitative information, such as, “Is this a good test? Is it reasonable and necessary?” he said.
Molecular, anatomic, and clinical pathologist Gabriel Bien-Willner, MD, PhD (above), Palmetto GBA’s Chief Medical Officer, will speak about Z-Codes and the MolDX program during several sessions at the upcoming Executive War College on Diagnostics, Clinical Laboratory, and Pathology Management taking place in New Orleans on April 30-May 1. Clinical laboratories involved in genetic testing will want to attend these critical sessions. (Photo copyright: Bien-Willner Physicians Association.)
Palmetto GBA Takes Control
Palmetto’s involvement with Z-Codes goes back to 2011, when the company established the MolDX program on behalf of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The purpose was to handle processing of Medicare claims involving genetic tests. The coding system was originally developed by McKesson, and Palmetto adopted it as a more granular way to track use of the tests.
In 2017, McKesson merged its information technology business with Change Healthcare Holdings LLC to form Change Healthcare. Palmetto GBA acquired the Z-Codes and DEX registry from Change in 2020. Palmetto GBA had already been using the codes in MolDX and “we felt we needed better control of our own operations,” Bien-Willner explained.
In addition to administering MolDX, Palmetto is one of four regional Medicare contractors who require Z-Codes in claims for genetic tests. Collectively, the contractors handle Medicare claims submissions in 28 states.
Benefits of Z-Codes
Why require use of Z-Codes? Bien-Willner explained that the system addresses several fundamental issues with molecular diagnostic testing.
“Payers interact with labs through claims,” he said. “A claim will often have a CPT code [Current Procedural Technology code] that doesn’t really explain what was done or why.”
In addition, “molecular diagnostic testing is mostly done with laboratory developed tests (LDTs), not FDA-approved tests,” he said. “We don’t see LDTs as a problem, but there’s no standardization of the services. Two services could be described similarly, or with the same CPT codes. But they could have different intended uses with different levels of sophistication and different methodologies, quality, and content. So, how does the payer know what they’re paying for and whether it’s any good?”
When the CPT code is accompanied by a Z-Code, he said, “now we know exactly what test was done, who did it, who’s authorized to do it, what analytes are measured, and whether it meets coverage criteria under policy.”
The process to obtain a code begins when the lab registers for the DEX system, he explained. “Then they submit information about the test. They describe the intended use, the analytes that are being measured, and the methodologies. When they’ve submitted all the necessary information, we give the test a Z-Code.”
The assessment could be as simple as a spreadsheet that asks the lab which cancer types were tested in validation, he said. On the other end of the scale, “we might want to see the entire validation summary documentation,” he said.
Commercial Potential
Bien-Willner joined the Palmetto GBA in 2018 primarily to direct the MolDX program. But he soon saw the potential use of Z-Codes and the DEX registry for commercial plans. “It became instantly obvious that this is a problem for all payers, not just Medicare,” he said.
Over time, he said, “we’ve refined these processes to make them more reproducible, scalable, and efficient. Now commercial plans can license the DEX system, which Z-Codes are a part of, to better automate claims processing or pre-authorizations.”
In 2021, the company began offering the coding system for Medicare Advantage plans, with UHC the first to come aboard. “It was much easier to roll this out for Medicare Advantage, because those programs have to follow the same policies that Medicare does,” he explained.
As for UHC’s commercial plans, the insurer originally planned to require Z-Codes in claims beginning Aug. 1, 2023, then pushed that back to Oct. 1, according to Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report.
Then it was pushed back again to April 1 of this year, and now to June 1.
“The implementation will be in a stepwise fashion,” Bien-Willner advised. “It’s difficult to take an entirely different approach to claims processing. There are something like 10 switches that have to be turned on for everything to work, and it’s going to be one switch at a time.”
For Palmetto GBA, the commercial plans represent “a whole different line of business that I think will have a huge impact in this industry,” he said. “They have the same issues that Medicare has. But for Medicare, we had to create automated solutions up front because it’s more of a pay and chase model,” where the claim is paid and CMS later goes after errors or fraudulent claims.
“Commercial plans in general just thought they could manually solve this issue on a claim-by-claim basis,” he said. “That worked well when there was just a handful of genetic tests. Now there are tens of thousands of tests and it’s impossible to keep up.
They instituted programs to try to control these things, but I don’t believe they work very well.”
Bien-Willner is scheduled to speak about Palmetto GBA’s MolDX program, Z-Codes, and related topics during three sessions at the upcoming 29th annual Executive War College conference. Clinical laboratory and pathology group managers would be wise to attend his presentations. Visit here (or paste this URL into your browser: https://www.executivewarcollege.com/registration) to learn more and to secure your seat in New Orleans.
Federal prosecutors allege that this nurse practitioner ordered more genetic tests for Medicare beneficiaries than any other provider during 2020
Cases of Medicare fraud involving clinical laboratory testing continue to be prosecuted by the federal Department of Justice. A jury in Miami recently convicted a nurse practitioner (NP) for her role in a massive Medicare fraud scheme for millions of dollars in medically unnecessary genetic testing and durable medical equipment. She faces 75 years in prison when sentenced in December.
In their indictment, federal prosecutors alleged that from August 2018 through June 2021 Elizabeth Mercedes Hernandez, NP, of Homestead, Florida, worked with more than eight telemedicine and marketing companies to sign “thousands of orders for medically unnecessary orthotic braces and genetic tests, resulting in fraudulent Medicare billings in excess of $200 million,” according to a US Department of Justice (DOJ) news release announcing the conviction.
“Hernandez personally pocketed approximately $1.6 million in the scheme, which she used to purchase expensive cars, jewelry, home renovations, and travel,” the press release noted.
Hernandez was indicted in April 2022 as part of a larger DOJ crackdown on healthcare fraud related to the COVID-19 outbreak.
“Throughout the pandemic, we have seen trusted medical professionals orchestrate and carry out egregious crimes against their patients all for financial gain,” said Assistant Director Luis Quesada (above) of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division, in a DOJ press release. Clinical laboratory managers would be wise to monitor these Medicare fraud cases. (Photo copyright: Federal Bureau of Investigation.)
Nurse Practitioner Received Kickbacks and Bribes
Federal prosecutors alleged that the scheme involved telemarketing companies that contacted Medicare beneficiaries and persuaded them to request genetic tests and orthotic braces. Hernandez, they said, then signed pre-filled orders, “attesting that she had examined or treated the patients,” according to the DOJ news release.
In many cases, Hernandez had not even spoken with the patients, prosecutors said. “She then billed Medicare as though she were conducting complex office visits with these patients, and routinely billed more than 24 hours of ‘office visits’ in a single day,” according to the news release.
In total, Hernandez submitted fraudulent claims of approximately $119 million for genetic tests, the indictment stated. “In 2020, Hernandez ordered more cancer genetic (CGx) tests for Medicare beneficiaries than any other provider in the nation, including oncologists and geneticists,” according to the news release.
The indictment noted that because CGx tests do not diagnose cancer, Medicare covers them only “in limited circumstances, such as when a beneficiary had cancer and the beneficiary’s treating physician deemed such testing necessary for the beneficiary’s treatment of that cancer. Medicare did not cover CGx testing for beneficiaries who did not have cancer or lacked symptoms of cancer.”
In exchange for signing the orders, Hernandez received kickbacks and bribes from companies that claimed to be in the telemedicine business, the indictment stated.
“These healthcare fraud abuses erode the integrity and trust patients have with those in the healthcare industry … the FBI, working in coordination with our law enforcement partners, will continue to investigate and pursue those who exploit the integrity of the healthcare industry for profit,” said Assistant Director Luis Quesada of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Criminal Investigative Division, in the DOJ press release.
Conspirators Took Advantage of COVID-19 Pandemic
Prosecutors alleged that as part of the scheme, she and her co-conspirators took advantage of temporary amendments to rules involving telehealth services—changes that were enacted by Medicare in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The indictment noted that prior to the pandemic, Medicare covered expenses for telehealth services only if the beneficiary “was located in a rural or health professional shortage area,” and “was in a practitioner’s office or a specified medical facility—not at a beneficiary’s home.”
But in response to the pandemic, Medicare relaxed the restrictions to allow coverage “even if the beneficiary was not located in a rural area or a health professional shortage area, and even if the telehealth services were furnished to beneficiaries in their home.”
Hernandez was convicted of:
One count of conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and wire fraud.
Four counts of healthcare fraud.
Three counts of making false statements.
Medscape noted that she was acquitted of two counts of healthcare fraud. The trial lasted six days, Medscape reported.
Hernandez’s sentencing hearing is scheduled for Dec. 14.
Co-Conspirators Plead Guilty
Two other co-conspirators in the case, Leonel Palatnik and Michael Stein, had previously pleaded guilty and received sentences, the Miami Herald reported.
Palatnik was co-owner of Panda Conservation Group LLC, which operated two genetic testing laboratories in Florida. Prosecutors said that Palatnik paid kickbacks to Stein, owner of 1523 Holdings LLC, “in exchange for his work arranging for telemedicine providers to authorize genetic testing orders for Panda’s laboratories,” according to a DOJ press release. The kickbacks were disguised as payments for information technology (IT) and consulting services.
“1523 Holdings then exploited temporary amendments to telehealth restrictions enacted during the pandemic by offering telehealth providers access to Medicare beneficiaries for whom they could bill consultations,” the press release states. “In exchange, these providers agreed to refer beneficiaries to Panda’s laboratories for expensive and medically unnecessary cancer and cardiovascular genetic testing.”
Palatnik pleaded guilty to his role in the kickback scheme in August 2021 and was sentenced to 82 months in prison, a DOJ press release states.
Stein pleaded guilty in April and was sentenced to five years in prison, the Miami Herald reported. He was also ordered to pay $63.3 million in restitution.
These federal cases involving clinical laboratory genetic testing and other tests and medical equipment indicate a commitment on the DOJ’s part to continue cracking down on healthcare fraud.
In a handful of cases, health insurers reversed denials after physicians or patients posted complaints on social media
Prior authorization requirements by health insurers have long been a thorn in the side of medical laboratories, as well as physicians. But now, doctors and patients are employing a new tactic against the practice—turning to social media to shame payers into reversing denials, according to KFF Health News (formerly Kaiser Health News).
Genetic testing lab companies are quite familiar with prior authorization problems. They see a significant number of their genetic test requests fail to obtain a prior authorization. Thus, if the lab performs the test, the payer will likely not reimburse, leaving the lab to bill the patient for 100% of the test price, commonly $1,000 to $5,000. Then, an irate patient typically calls the doctor to complain about the huge out-of-pocket cost.
“There are times when you simply must call out wrongdoings,” she wrote in an Instagram post, according to the outlet. “This is one of those times.”
In response, an “escalation specialist” from BCBSIL contacted her but was unable to help. Then, after KFF Health News reached out, Nix discovered on her own that $36,000 in outstanding claims were marked “paid.”
“No one from the company had contacted her to explain why or what had changed,” KFF reported. “[Nix] also said she was informed by her hospital that the insurer will no longer require her to obtain prior authorization before her infusions, which she restarted in July.”
“I think we’re on the precipice of really improving the environment for prior authorization,” said Todd Askew, Senior Vice President, Advocacy, for the American Medical Association, in an AMA Advocacy Update. If this was to happen, it would be welcome news for clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups. (Photo copyright: Nashville Medical News.)
Physicians Also Take to Social Media to Complain about Denials
Some physicians have taken similar actions, KFF Health News reported. One was gastroenterologist Shehzad A. Saeed, MD, of Dayton Children’s Hospital in Ohio. Saeed posted a photo of a patient’s skin rash on Twitter in March after Anthem denied treatment for symptoms of Crohn’s disease. “Unacceptable and shameful!” he tweeted.
Two weeks later, he reported that the treatment was approved soon after the tweet. “When did Twitter become the preferred pathway for drug approval?” he wrote.
Eunice Stallman, MD, a psychiatrist from Boise, Idaho, complained on X (formerly Twitter) about Blue Cross of Idaho’s prior authorization denial of a brain cancer treatment for her nine-month-old daughter. “This is my daughter that you tried to deny care for,” she posted. “When a team of expert [doctors] recommend a treatment, your PharmD reviewers don’t get to deny her life-saving care for your profits.”
However, in this case, she posted her account after Blue Cross Idaho reversed the denial. She said she did this in part to prevent the payer from denying coverage for the drug in the future. “The power of the social media has been huge,” she told KFF Health News. The story noted that she joined X for the first time so she could share her story.
Affordable Care Act Loophole?
“We’re not going to get rid of prior authorization. Nobody is saying we should get rid of it entirely, but it needs to be right sized, it needs to be simplified, it needs to be less friction between the patient and accessing their benefits. And I think we’re on really good track to make some significant improvements in government programs, as well as in the private sector,” said Todd Askew, Senior Vice President, Advocacy, for the American Medical Association, in an AMA Advocacy Update.
However, KFF HealthNews reported that Kaye Pestaina, JD, a Kaiser Family Foundation VP and Co-Director of the group’s Program on Patient and Consumer Protections, noted that some “patient advocates and health policy experts” have questioned whether payers’ use of prior authorization denials may be a way to get around the Affordable Care Act’s prohibition against denial of coverage for preexisting conditions.
“They take in premiums and don’t pay claims,” family physician and healthcare consultant Linda Peeno, MD, told KFF Health News. “That’s how they make money. They just delay and delay and delay until you die. And you’re absolutely helpless as a patient.” Peeno was a medical reviewer for Humana in the 1980s and then became a whistleblower.
The issue became top-of-mind for genetic testing labs in 2017, when Anthem (now Elevance) and UnitedHealthcare established programs in which physicians needed prior authorization before the insurers would agree to pay for genetic tests.
Dark Daily’s sister publication The Dark Report covered this in “Two Largest Payers Start Lab Test Pre-Authorization.” We noted then that it was reasonable to assume that other health insurers would follow suit and institute their own programs to manage how physicians utilize genetic tests.
At least one large payer has made a move to reduce prior authorization in some cases. Effective Sept. 1, UnitedHealthcare began a phased approach to remove prior authorization requirements for hundreds of procedures, including more than 200 genetic tests under some commercial insurance plans.
However, a source close to the payer industry noted to Dark Daily that UnitedHealthcare has balked at paying hundreds of millions’ worth of genetic claims going back 24 months. The source indicated that genetic test labs are engaging attorneys to push their claims forward with the payer.
Is Complaining on Social Media an Effective Tactic?
A story in Harvard Business Review cited research suggesting that companies should avoid responding publicly to customer complaints on social media. Though public engagement may appear to be a good idea, “when companies responded publicly to negative tweets, researchers found that those companies experienced a drop in stock price and a reduction in brand image,” the authors wrote.
However, the 2023 “National Customer Rage Survey,” conducted by Customer Care Measurement and Consulting and Arizona State University, found that nearly two-thirds of people who complained on social media received a response. And “many patients and doctors believe venting online is an effective strategy, though it remains unclear how often this tactic works in reversing prior authorization denials,” KFF Health News reported.
Federal Government and States Step In
KFF Health News reported that the federal government is proposing reforms that would require some health plans “to provide more transparency about denials and to speed up their response times.” The changes, which would take effect in 2026, would apply to Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and federal Health Insurance Marketplace plans, “but not employer-sponsored health plans.”
KFF also noted that some insurers are voluntarily revising prior authorization rules. And the American Medical Association reported in March that 30 states, including Arkansas, California, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Washington, are considering their own legislation to reform the practice. Some are modeled on legislation drafted by the AMA.
Though the states and the federal government are proposing regulations to address prior authorization complaints, reform will likely take time. Given Harvard Business Review’s suggestion to resist replying to negative customer complaints in social media, clinical labs—indeed, all healthcare providers—should carefully consider the full consequences of going to social media to describe issues they are having with health insurers.
Proposal comes as patient advocacy group reports poor compliance by hospitals with the federal price transparency regulation; AHA pushes back
Recent data compiled by Patient Rights Advocate, a non-profit group dedicated to nationwide healthcare transparency, appears to indicate that as many as two thirds of US hospitals continue to ignore hospital transparency rules established by Congress in 2021, according to an op-ed published in the Washington Examiner.
This may be why the Biden Administration has now proposed new amendments aimed at strengthening those requirements. According to KFF Health News (formerly Kaiser Health News), this new proposal “aims to further standardize the required data, increase its usefulness for consumers, and boost enforcement.”
However, “the goal of exact price tags in every situation is likely to remain elusive,” KFF Health News noted.
“Noncompliant hospitals are preventing patients and payers from shopping around for high-value care—and inflating healthcare costs in the process,” wrote Sally C. Pipes, President and CEO of Pacific Research Institute, in her Washington Examiner column.
Pathologists who were near the top of a Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI) list of medical specialties that most often billed out of network may be affected by CMS’ proposed new amendments to the transparency rule.
“The nonprofit group Patient Rights Advocate just published its fifth report exploring how hospitals are complying with federal price transparency requirements. About two-thirds are still flouting the rules. That’s unacceptable,” wrote Sally Pipes (above), President and CEO of Pacific Research Institute, in an op-ed she penned for the Washington Examiner. Federal law also requires clinical laboratories to post their prices for testing. (Photo copyright: The Heartland Institute.)
Hospitals, Clinical Laboratories Required to Post Chargemaster Prices
That rule also required hospitals to provide a list of charges for at least 300 “shoppable services,” including at least 14 laboratory and pathology tests.
“We’re closer to that, but we’re not there,” Gerard Anderson, PhD, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told KFF. The goal may be the kind of pricing transparency that consumers are accustomed to when purchasing goods and services, but healthcare, he said, poses unique challenges.
“Each patient is unique and uses a slightly different bundle of services,” Anderson added. “You might be in the operating room for 30 minutes, or it might be 45. You might need this lab test and not that one.”
The KFF Health News story noted that health insurers have been subject to even stricter regulations, “with more prescriptive details and tougher penalties for noncompliance,” since 2022. CMS’ latest proposed amendments would bring requirements for hospitals that are more in line with those that apply to payers, KFF reported.
As described in the Federal Register, the proposed rule aims to:
Require hospitals to include a new data element known as the “consumer-friendly expected allowed charges,” KFF Health News noted.
Require hospitals to “affirm the accuracy and completeness of their standard charge information displayed in the MRF.”
Require hospitals to place a link to pricing information in the footers of their web pages.
The rule also includes provisions for enhanced enforcement of pricing transparency requirements. Under one proposal, CMS would publicly identify hospitals that are not in compliance.
Jeffrey Leibach, MBA, a healthcare finance strategist and Partner with the consulting firm Guidehouse, told KFF Health News that the new rules will make it easier for third-party data firms to create online price comparison tools. “And, ultimately, consumers who want to shop will then find this data more easily,” he said.
The proposal comes on the heels of a July report from Patient Rights Advocate (PRA) indicating that only 36% of US hospitals were in full compliance with the current transparency requirements. The report was based on an analysis of 2,000 hospital websites. However, that was an improvement over earlier reports. In February, the group reported that 24.5% were fully compliant, compared with 16% in August 2022.
Most hospitals in the report posted negotiated prices, but in many cases, “their pricing data was missing or significantly incomplete,” PRA contended. A total of 69 hospitals “did not post a usable standard charges file,” the report stated.
PRA Uses Humor to Highlight Discrepancies, AHA Pushes Back
According to KFF Health News, PRA is running a satirical ad campaign in which retailers adopt the “hospital pricing method,” listing estimates on store shelves instead of actual prices.
“When they ask for a price, we give them an estimate,” says one retail manager in the video ad. “Then we bill them whatever we want.”
This new video pokes fun at the lack of price transparency in healthcare. The American Hospital Association took issue with the clip’s tone.
“People need price certainty,” PRA founder and Chairman Cynthia Fisher, MBA, told KFF Health News. “Estimates are a way of gaming the people who pay for healthcare.”
However, executives from the American Hospital Association (AHA) pushed back on the video ad and PRA’s claims about HPT compliance. AHA contends that hospitals were flagged as being noncompliant if they left spaces blank or used formulas, both of which are permitted under the current rules.
“Very few health services are so straightforward where you can expect no variation in the course of care, which could then result in a different cost than the original assessment,” AHA Group Vice President for public policy Molly Smith, MS, told KFF. “Organizations are doing the best they can to provide the closest estimate. If something changes in the course of your care, that estimate might adjust.”
As for the July PRA report, in a July 25 AHA press release, Smith stated, “Patient Rights Advocate has put out a report that blatantly misconstrues, ignores, and mischaracterizes hospitals’ compliance with federal price transparency regulations.”
CMS, she said, “has found that as of last year 70% of hospitals had complied with both federal requirements and over 80% had complied with at least one. Due to the ongoing efforts of the hospital field, these numbers are surely higher today. Third party analyses have agreed that hospitals have made tremendous progress.”
But then what is motivating the government’s new amendments to the price transparency rule? Regardless, clinical laboratories and pathology groups should continue to monitor progress of these new amendments to the federal hospital transparency rule.
