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.
By analyzing strains of the bacterium from a hospital ICU, the scientists learned that most infections were triggered within patients, not from cross-transmission
Tracking the source of Hospital-acquired infections (HAI) has long been centered around the assumption that most HAIs originate from cross-transmission within the hospital or healthcare setting. And prevention measures are costly for hospitals and medical laboratories. However, new research puts a surprising new angle on a different source for some proportion of these infections.
The study suggests that most infections caused by Clostridioides difficile (C. Diff), the bacterium most responsible for HAIs, arise not from cross-transmission in the hospital, but within patients who already carry the bacterium.
A researcher performed whole genome sequencing on 425 strains of the bacterium isolated from the samples and found “very little evidence that the strains of C. diff from one patient to the next were the same, which would imply in-hospital acquisition,” according to a UM news story.
“In fact, there were only six genomically supported transmissions over the study period. Instead, people who were already colonized were at greater risk of transitioning to infection,” UM stated.
Arianna Miles-Jay, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in The Snitkin Lab at the University of Michigan and Manager of the Genomic Analysis Unit at the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, performed the genomic sequencing. “By systematically culturing every patient, we thought we could understand how transmission was happening. The surprise was that, based on the genomics, there was very little transmission,” she said in the UM news story.
“Something happened to these patients that we still don’t understand to trigger the transition from C. diff hanging out in the gut to the organism causing diarrhea and the other complications resulting from infection,” said Evan Snitkin, PhD (above), Associate Professor of Microbiology and Immunology, and Associate Professor of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases at University of Michigan, in a UM news story. Medical laboratories involved in hospital-acquired infection prevention understand the importance of this research and its effect on patient safety. (Photo copyright: University of Michigan.)
Only a Fraction of HAIs Are Through Cross-Transmission
In the study abstract, the researchers wrote that “despite enhanced infection prevention efforts, Clostridioides difficile remains the leading cause of healthcare-associated infections in the United States.”
Citing data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), HealthDay reported that “nearly half a million C. diff infections occur in the United States each year. Between 13,000 and 16,000 people die from the bacterium, which causes watery diarrhea and inflammation of the colon. Many of these infections and deaths have been blamed on transmission between hospitalized patients.”
The new study, however, notes that 9.3% of the patients admitted to the ICU carried toxigenic (produces toxins) C. diff, but only 1% acquired it via cross-transmission. The carriers, the study authors wrote, “posed minimal risk to others,” but were 24 times more likely to develop a C. diff infection than non-carriers.
“Our findings suggest that measures in place in the ICU at the time of the study—high rates of compliance with hand hygiene among healthcare personnel, routine environmental disinfection with an agent active against C. diff, and single patient rooms —were effective in preventing C. diff transmission,” Snitkin told HealthDay. “This indicates that to make further progress in protecting patients from developing C. diff infections will require improving our understanding of the triggers that lead patients asymptomatically carrying C. diff to transition to having infections.”
Recognizing Risk Factors
Despite the finding that infections were largely triggered within the patients, the researchers still emphasized the importance of taking measures to prevent hospital-acquired infections.
“In fact, the measures in place in the Rush ICU at the time of the study—high rates of compliance with hand hygiene among healthcare personnel, routine environmental disinfection with an agent active against C. diff, and single patient rooms—were likely responsible for the low transmission rate,” the UM news story noted.
One expert not involved with the study suggested that hospitals’ use of antibiotics may be a factor in causing C. diff carriers to develop infections.
“These findings suggest that while we should continue our current infection prevention strategies, attention should also be given to identifying the individuals who are asymptomatic carriers and finding ways to reduce their risk of developing an infection, like carefully optimizing antibiotic usage and recognizing other risk factors,” Hannah Newman, Senior Director of Infection Prevention at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, told HealthDay.
Snitkin, however, told HealthDay that other factors are likely at play. “There is support for antibiotic disruption of the microbiota being one type of trigger event, but there is certainly more to it than that, as not every patient who carries C. diff and receives antibiotics will develop an infection.”
Another expert not involved with the study told HealthDay that “many patients are already colonized,” especially older ones or those who have been previously hospitalized.
“A lot of their normal flora in their GI tract can be altered either through surgery or antibiotics or some other mechanism, and then symptoms occur, and that’s when they are treated with antibiotics,” said Donna Armellino, RN, Senior VP of Infection Prevention at Northwell Health in Manhasset, New York.
This research also demonstrates the value of faster, cheaper, more accurate gene sequencing for researching life-threatening conditions. Microbiologists, Clinical laboratory scientists, and pathologists will want monitor further developments involving these findings as researchers from University of Michigan and Rush University Medical Center continue to learn more about the source of C. diff infections.
The newly approved legislation will “eliminate regulations preventing patients from learning about diagnostic testing and services provided by local clinical laboratories,” according to a press release issued by the Pennsylvania Senate Republicans.
Republican state Senator Rosemary Brown was the bill’s primary sponsor. She was joined as co-sponsors by a bipartisan group of colleagues.
“The regulations prevent patients from learning about clinical laboratories and the services they provide,” Brown said in the press release. “Patients deserve to know about their options when they are selecting a clinical laboratory to perform these important tests and procedures.”
The press release noted that Pennsylvania is the only state that prohibits clinical laboratories from advertising to residents.
“It’s time for Pennsylvania to catch up with the rest of the nation and enable patients to have access to this information,” said co-sponsor of the bill Republican Senator Tracy Pennycuick (above) in a press release. “Our bill would enable advertising while maintaining the important consumer protection provisions that ensure tests and procedures can only be performed based on a doctor’s order.” Once enacted into law, clinical laboratories in Pennsylvania will be able to advertise their services just like labs in other US states. (Photo copyright: Montgomery County Republican Committee.)
Details of Senate Bill 712
The bill applies to clinical laboratory tests ordered by licensed healthcare practitioners and performed by the medical laboratories themselves. Labs are prohibited from making claims “about the reliability and validity of the testing that is inconsistent with the testing proficiency standards” in federal law, the bill states, and labs must disclose that the test “may or may not be covered by health insurance.”
Brown, Pennycuick, and co-sponsor Republican Senator Lynda Schlegel Culver, discussed the need for the new legislation in a March 2023 memo, observing that 70% of healthcare decisions are influenced by clinical laboratory tests.
“As our state and the nation’s healthcare system continues to grow and evolve, consumers are demanding greater transparency and to be more engaged in how healthcare is delivered to them,” they wrote, adding that the state’s current restrictions are “outdated.”
“We believe permitting outreach to Pennsylvania consumers with accurate, scientifically based diagnostic information can be a source of personalized, highly relevant insight to help foster better, more informed dialogue with licensed healthcare providers, which enables Pennsylvania consumers to take action to improve their health,” they wrote.
“Patients should have access to information about the services and procedures available at their local clinical laboratories,” said Senator Culver in the press release. “I want to make sure patients can make informed decisions about where and how to obtain these important health services. Our bill would remove the gag order on this specific set of healthcare services.”
Similar legislation, HB1558, sponsored by Republican Representative Paul Schemel, is currently pending in Pennsylvania’s House of Representatives.
Larger Push for Healthcare Consumerism
Dark Daily and our sister publication The Dark Report have reported extensively about the rise of consumerism in healthcare—including factors such as price transparency—as it applies to medical laboratories.
And in “Millennials Set to Reorder Healthcare and Lab Testing,” The Dark Report advised clinical laboratories on the need to reconfigure key aspects of their services to accommodate the rising numbers of Millennials in the workforce. For example, these consumers are accustomed to using mobile devices to interact with retailers and want the same convenience when obtaining healthcare services from doctors and labs.
Global management consulting firm McKinsey and Company addressed many of these issues in report titled, “Driving Growth through Consumer Centricity in Healthcare.” The authors suggested that healthcare providers need to “redefine the consumer experience” by emulating “consumer-focused companies in other sectors” with “personalized offerings and services, value-based pricing, and an elevated experience—all from distinctive, high-quality brands.”
The report also noted that providers still have a lot of work to do. “Many consumers believe that the health system does not support their care needs, and they perceive that the quality of their healthcare is negatively affected by their personal attributes, including income, insurance coverage, weight, and age, among other factors,” the authors wrote.
Huron, a healthcare consulting company, identified five current trends in healthcare consumerism based on a survey of US consumers, Healthcare Dive reported. They are:
Greater digital functionality, including telehealth, wearable devices to report health data, and mobile apps for scheduling, communication, and payment.
Affordability, shorter wait times, and online ratings as factors driving consumers to choose providers.
Accurate diagnoses and effective treatment plans as drivers of consumer satisfaction.
Increasing demand for technology-enabled conveniences such as virtual care.
More price transparency in response to concerns about affordability.
Pennsylvania’s decision to join the rest of the nation and allow clinical laboratories to advertise their services may be evidence that the growing number of consumers who want direct access to medical care and the ability to choose their provider—be it hospital, physician, or clinical laboratory—are encouraging the pathology and medical laboratory professions to lobby their state lawmakers to make it easier to advertise their services to the public.
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.
