Clinical laboratories are advised to continue developing methods for making prices for procedures available to the general public
Even as an effective treatment for COVID-19 continues to elude federal healthcare agencies, Medicare officials are pressing ahead with efforts to bring about transparency in hospital healthcare pricing, including clinical laboratory procedures and prescription drugs costs.
In FY 2021 Proposed Rule CMS-1735-P, titled, “Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Proposed Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2021 Rates; Quality Reporting and Medicare and Medicaid Promoting Interoperability Programs Requirements for Eligible Hospitals and Critical Access Hospitals,” the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) proposes to “revise the Medicare hospital inpatient prospective payment systems (IPPS) for operating and capital-related costs of acute care hospitals to implement changes arising from our continuing experience with these systems for FY 2021 and to implement certain recent legislation.”
The proposed rule suggests a 1.6% increase (about $2 billion) in reimbursement for hospital inpatient services for 2021, but also eludes to the possibility of payer negotiated rates being used to determine future payment to hospitals.
In its analysis of the proposed rule, Modern Healthcare noted that CMS is “continuing its price transparency push, to the chagrin of some providers.”
However, the provisions in the proposed rule do, according to the CMS news release, advance several presidential executive orders, including:
Controversial Use of Payer Data for Future Medicare Rates
This latest CMS proposed rule (comments period ended July 10) moves forward “controversial price transparency” and has a new element of possible leverage of reported information for future Medicare payment rates, Healthcare Dive reported.
The 1,602-page proposed rule (CMS-1735-P) calls for these requirements in hospital Medicare cost reports:
Median payer-specific negotiated inpatient services;
Inclusion of rates for Medicare Advantage plans and other third party plans;
“In addition, the agency is requesting information regarding the potential use of these data to set relative Medicare payment rates for hospital procedures,” the CMS news release states.
Thus, under the proposed rule, the nation’s 3,200 acute care hospitals and 360 long-term care hospitals would need to start reporting requested data for discharges effective Oct. 1, 2020, a CMS fact sheet explained.
In the news release following the release of the proposed rule, CMS Administrator Seema Verma had a positive spin. “Today’s payment rate announcement focuses on what matters most to help hospitals conduct their business and receive stable and consistent payment.”
However, the American Hospital Association (AHA) articulated a different view, even calling the requirement for hospitals to report private terms “unlawful.”
“We are very disappointed that CMS continues down the unlawful path of requiring hospitals to disclose privately negotiated contract terms,” AHA Executive Vice President Tom Nickels (above) said in a statement, adding, “The disclosure of privately negotiated rates will not further CMS’ goal of paying market rates that reflect the cost of delivering care. These rates take into account any number of unique circumstances between a private payer and a hospital and simply are not relevant for fixing Fee-for-Service Medicare reimbursement.” (Photo copyright: American Hospital Association.)
AHA and other organizations attempted to block a price transparency final rule last year in a lawsuit filed against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees CMS, Dark Daily reported.
During in-court testimony, provider representatives declared that revealing rates they negotiate with payers violates First Amendment rights, Becker’s Hospital Review reported.
Officials for the federal government pushed back telling the federal judge that they can indeed require hospitals to publish negotiated rates. Hospital chargemasters, they added, don’t tell the full story, since consumers don’t pay those rates, Modern Healthcare reported.
In addition to the increase in inpatient payments and price transparency next steps, the recent CMS proposed rule also includes a new hospital payment category for chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. The technique uses a patient’s own genetically-modified immune cells to treat some cancers, as an alternative to chemotherapy and other treatment covered by IPPS, CMS said in the news release.
The agency also expressed intent to remove payment barriers to new antimicrobials approved by the FDA’s Limited Population Pathway for Antibacterial and Antifungal Drugs (LPAD pathway). “The LPAD pathway encourages the development of safe and effective drug products that address unmet needs of patients with serious bacterial and fungal infections,” the CMS fact sheet states.
Clinical laboratories are gateways to healthcare. For hospital lab leaders, the notion of making tests prices easily accessible to patients and consumers will soon no longer be a nice idea—but a legal requirement.
Therefore, clinical laboratory leaders are advised to stay abreast of price transparency regulations and continue to prepare for sharing test prices and information with patients and the general public in ways that fulfill federal requirements.
Insurance industry claims new federal price transparency regulations cost each payer as much as $13.6 million in set up and maintenance costs
Price transparency in hospital, clinical laboratory, and other service provider costs marches ever closer to reality for America’s healthcare consumers. Meanwhile, some insurers and hospital groups are working to block implementation of federal rules they argue will confuse consumers and potentially lead to higher costs.
The first is a Proposed Rule, titled, “Transparency in Coverage Proposed Rule” (CMS-9915-P) that would require payers to make public on their websites negotiated rates for in-network providers and allowed amounts paid for out-of-network providers. Insurers also would be required to make an online “tool” available to members that would provide consumers with out-of-pocket cost estimates for “all covered healthcare items and services.” The 60-day public comment period for this rule went into effect November 15, 2019.
Medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups may want to closely monitor ongoing efforts by payers and hospital groups to block these rules, since any changes will extend to their services, as well as extend price transparency to most employer-based group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual coverage.
Will Transparency Lead to Higher Healthcare Costs?
In its story on insurer claims, FierceHealthcare reported that the rule would require payers to disclose a “staggering” amount of data, leading to implementation costs 26 times more than the Trump administration’s $510,000 estimate. To comply with the federal rule, an insurer will spend as much as $13.63 million on setup and maintenance. That prediction is based on an economic analysis from economic consulting firm Bates White, which conducted the survey on behalf of The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA).
“Some plans have indicated they would be forced to run two sets of tools—one designed to meet member shopping needs and another implemented only to meet the requirements of the proposed rule,” the BCBSA told FierceHealthcare.
Meanwhile, the Association for Community Affiliated Plans (ACAP) argued in a letter to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Seema Verma that cost-sharing liability estimates—which are not a price quote for care—could “lead to consumer confusion and frustration.” The ACAP also asserts the transparency plan could inadvertently lead to higher healthcare cost increases.
“In the absence of quality data, consumers may determine that high cost equates to higher value, select the higher-cost providers, and ultimately drive up medical expenses, especially in circumstances where the consumer’s out-of-pocket costs have been met,” wrote ACAP Chief Executive Officer Margaret A. Murray.
“We have long supported efforts to make quality and pricing information more accessible, understandable, and actionable for consumers,” the ACHP wrote. “But they need real-time, patient-specific information tied to individual coverage benefits, not a massive published list of prices that may only frustrate consumers and likely increase costs over time.”
Hospital Associations and Healthcare Systems Bring Lawsuit Against HHS
In December 2019, several hospital associations and healthcare groups filed a lawsuit to block next year’s implementation of the hospital price transparency rule. The plaintiffs included the:
These healthcare organizations and providers joined together to argue that HHS lacks the statutory authority to require and enforce public disclosure of individually negotiated rates between commercial health insurers and hospitals. They also say consumers are likely to be confused by the information they receive.
“America’s hospitals and health systems stand with patients and are dedicated to ensuring they have the information needed to make informed healthcare decisions, including what their expected out-of-pocket costs will be,” said Rick Pollack (above), President and CEO, American Hospital Association, in a news release. “Instead of giving patients relevant information about costs, this rule will lead to widespread confusion and even more consolidation in the commercial health insurance industry.” (Photo copyright: American Hospital Association.)
In its legal response, HHS contends that hospitals are adding to consumers’ confusion by failing to provide transparency.
“They do not dispute that consumers are casting about for accurate information about prices in a complex healthcare system, yet they rely on that same complexity as an affirmative reason to deprive patients of pricing information they need to figure out their out-of-pocket expenses,” HHS said in its brief.
DePaul University Professor Anthony LoSasso, PhD, who specializes in healthcare economics, admits to being “on the fence” regarding the pros and cons of transparency plans.
“I want to think that people can benefit from price transparency. But for a variety of reasons, people don’t look at pricing info even when it’s available,” LoSasso told WTTW News in Chicago.
Nevertheless, HHS vows to continue its push for price transparency.
“Hospitals should be ashamed that they aren’t willing to provide American patients the cost of a service before they purchase it,” HHS Deputy Assistant Secretary and National Spokesperson Caitlin Oakley told Reuters in a response to the hospital groups’ lawsuit.
In light of the government’s push to make healthcare pricing more transparent, clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology leaders in hospitals and health systems would be wise to prepare for a future that includes price shopping by consumers.
Even as some states lift stay-at-home orders, clinical laboratories and pathology groups face uncertainty about how quickly routine daily test referrals will return to normal, pre-pandemic levels
Although strokes and heart attacks do not take vacations, a large and growing number of patients with serious health issues who—in normal times—would require immediate attention are not contacting providers to get needed care. Instead, they are avoiding hospital emergency rooms and clinical laboratories for fear they’ll contract the COVID-19 coronavirus.
Starting in early March, hospitals nationwide suspended elective surgeries and procedures and reduced non-COVID-19 inpatient care to make beds available for the predicted on-rush of COVID-19 patients. However, in parts of the country, the predicted high demand for hospital beds and ventilators failed to materialize. Additionally, due to shelter-in-place orders, patients in many states postponed routine office visits with their primary care physicians.
The collective collapse in the number of elective services provided by hospitals, and the fall-off in patients visiting their doctors, is crushing the financial stability of the nation’s clinical laboratory industry.
In, “From Mid-March, Labs Saw Big Drop in Revenue,” Dark Daily’s sister publication, The Dark Report (TDR) reported on the revenue challenges facing clinical pathology groups and clinical laboratories. Kyle Fetter, Executive Vice President and General Manager of Diagnostic Services at XIFIN, a revenue cycle management company, told TDR that starting in the third week of March, labs suffered a steep decline in routine testing. By the end of March, that fall-off in revenue ranged from 44% for some AP specimens to 70% to 80% for some specialty AP work. During these same weeks, XIFIN’s data showed clinical labs experienced a drop in routine testing volume of 58%, hospital outreach testing declined by 61%, and molecular lab volume went down by 52%.
Can Clinical Laboratories Hang on Financially Until COVID-19 Goes Away?
Though most states have not met the nonbinding criteria recommended by the Trump administration for reopening, nearly 40 governors in early May began loosening stay-at-home orders, reported CNN, including allowing elective medical procedures to resume.
Patients may make up for lost time by returning to doctors’ offices for medical laboratory tests and other COVID-19-delayed procedures, and as this happens, clinical laboratories may experience a surge in routine test orders from doctors’ offices and hospital admissions once stay-at-home orders are lifted and fear of COVID-19 has passed.
According to an article published on Axios, a survey of 163 physicians conducted by SVB Leerink—an investment firm that specializes in healthcare and life sciences—found that “roughly three out of four doctors believe patient appointments will resume to normal, pre-coronavirus levels, no earlier than July, and 45% expect a rebound to occur sometime between July and September.” If so, the financial squeeze facing clinical laboratories, pathology groups, and other medical and dental professionals may continue to loosen.
Christopher Freer, DO (above), an emergency physician at St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx and Director of Emergency Medicine at RWJBarnabas Health, told CNBC that emergency departments are seeing patients with severe issues, such as stroke and appendicitis, but that those with milder symptoms appear to be staying away. “Even with coronavirus, we still have healthy people who get an illness and need to go to the emergency room,” he said. “Heart attacks don’t stop.” (Photo copyright: USA Today.)
Hospital Finances Are Being Particularly Stressed by Loss of Patients
The impact of stay-at-home orders on hospital systems, in particular, has been dramatic. CNBC reported that RWJBarnabas Health, an 1l-hospital 22-laboratory health system in New Jersey that has 11 emergency departments, totaled just 180 emergency room visits per day during a mid-April weekend, a sharp decline from their 280-per-day-average.
A recent Washington Post article paints an even bleaker picture. Clinicians in the United States, Spain, United Kingdom, and China anecdotally report a “silent sub-epidemic of people who need care at hospitals but dare not come in,” the article states, noting people with symptoms of appendicitis, heart attacks, stroke, infected gall bladders, and bowel obstructions are avoiding hospital emergency rooms.
“Everybody is frightened to come to the ER,” Mount Sinai Health System cardiovascular surgeon John Puskas, MD, told the Post. Though his 60-bed cardiac unit had been repurposed to care for COVID-19 patients, Puskas said the New York hospital system was seeing “dramatically fewer” cardiac patients.
Concerned that patients may be ignoring signs of heart attack or stroke rather than go to a hospital, the American College of Cardiology launched the “CardioSmart” campaign, which urges anyone experiencing heart symptoms to get prompt treatment and to continue routine appointments, using telehealth technology when available.
“Hospitals have safety measures to protect you from infection,” the CardioSmart website states. “Getting care quickly is critical. You’ll get better faster, and you’ll limit damage to your health.”
However, David Brown, MD, Chief of Emergency Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, argues the number of people having heart-related issues is unlikely to have dropped during the pandemic.
“Strokes and heart attacks don’t take a vacation just because there’s a pandemic,” Brown told The Boston Globe. “They’re still happening. They just aren’t happening as much inside the hospital, which is a major concern to me.”
Many healthcare professionals are worried about the long-term effect from pandemic-delayed preventative and elective procedures.
“The big question is are we going to see a lot more people that have bad outcomes from heart disease, from stroke, from cancer because they’ve put off what they should have had done, but were too afraid to come to the hospital?” Providence St. Joseph Health CEO Rod Hochman, MD, told CNBC.
Hochman, who is Chair-elect of the American Hospital Association (AHA), maintains the aftereffects of people putting off elective surgeries and screening procedures like colonoscopies and mammograms may be felt for years to come.
“We’re possibly going to see a blip in other disease entities as a consequence of doubling down on COVID-19,” he told CNBC.
In clinical laboratories, COVID-19 testing may have somewhat helped offset the drop in routine testing volume. However, the pandemic’s overall financial costs to labs and pathology groups will likely be felt for months to years, as patients slowly return to healthcare providers’ offices and hospitals.
Non-hospital-owned ambulatory care providers continue to take revenue from hospitals, as more patients choose urgent care centers and other options over emergency rooms
Thanks to the popularity of urgent care clinics and other non-hospital-based ambulatory care providers, the year-over-year growth in the number of hospital outpatient visits has been on the decline for decades. Dark Daily has covered this trend in many e-briefings over the years. But now, for the first time since 1983, outpatient visits fell below the previous year among more than 6,000 hospitals surveyed by the American Hospital Association (AHA).
This is an important event, because anything that affects a hospital’s
revenue also affects that hospital’s medical laboratories and everyone
connected to it. The decline, according to the AHA, is primarily due to decreasing
visits to hospital emergency rooms. ERs provide significant revenue for
hospitals. Fewer ER visits means less clinical laboratory test ordering, fewer
image study requests, and may mean lower financial revenues overall.
The AHA released the findings in its “2020 Hospital Statistics Report.” The data show that outpatient visits to hospitals have decreased one year to the next for the first time in 35 years.
The AHA surveyed 6,146 hospitals located throughout the
nation. In 2017, those hospitals recorded a total of 880.5 million outpatient
visits. In 2018, those same hospitals delivered 879.6 million outpatient visits,
a reduction of 0.09% over the previous year.
That survey result marked the first time since 1983 that there was a decrease in outpatient visits from one year to the next, Modern Healthcare reported. The article goes on to state that the AHA’s report, “highlights the fact that patients are increasingly gravitating toward the countless disruptors that tout more convenient, cheaper options for primary care, urgent care, and even emergency care.”
The graphic above, taken from the American Hospital Association’s “2020 Hospital Statistics Report,” illustrates the decline in hospital outpatient visits since 1983. Besides studying ER visits, the AHA also surveyed hospital-owned ambulatory surgery centers, outpatient clinics, and walk-in clinics. Visits to those outpatient facilities remained stable, according to the AHA, or rose slightly from the previous year. Nevertheless, a decrease in visits to ERs means fewer clinical laboratory test and image study requests. (Graphic copyright: American Hospital Association.)
More Options for Receiving Healthcare Services
One of the main reasons for the decrease in hospital
outpatient visits is that patients have more options when seeking care. The
rise in the number of urgent care and walk-in clinics has provided healthcare
consumers with more convenient, less expensive options than traditional
hospital settings.
“We’re pivoting to a new business model in healthcare, with a much more pluralistic delivery system with many, many more consumer options,” Ken Kaufman, Chairman of management consulting firm Kaufman Hall, told Modern Healthcare. “Which, of course, is exactly the same thing that’s happening in other parts of the economy. I think it’s very important that especially the major health systems recognize this and realize they have to compete against it.”
Gap Between Inpatient and Outpatient Revenue Narrows
The AHA’s survey also found that, though there were fewer
outpatient visits to emergency rooms, the surveyed hospitals’ net outpatient
revenue actually increased by 4.5% from 2017 to 2018, and that the gap between
outpatient and inpatient revenue for hospitals continues to narrow.
In 2017, outpatient revenue for the hospitals was $494
billion, while inpatient revenue was $508 billion. That meant that total
outpatient revenue was 97% of the new inpatient revenue for 2017. In 2018, that
percentage was 95%; however, in 2016, it was 92%.
“I don’t know that I can speculate as to when they will converge, but the trend lines seem to be getting closer,” Aaron Wesolowski, Vice President, Policy Research, Analytics, and Strategy at AHA, told Modern Healthcare.
Though Outpatient Revenues Increased, Hospital Profits
Decreased
The AHA survey found that, overall, hospital profits
decreased by 5.2% when comparing 2017 to 2018. In 2017, the hospitals reported
a combined profit of $88 billion, but only a profit of $83.5 billion for
2018.
Wesolowski noted that the most likely reasons for the decrease
in profits were due to:
Continued lower reimbursements from public
payers;
The shift from inpatient to outpatient care;
Increasing labor costs; and
Increasing costs for drugs and supplies.
AHA annual hospital surveys also collected aggregate data
regarding payments and costs associated with hospital care to beneficiaries of
Medicare and Medicaid services. Those
surveys found that:
Combined underpayments to hospitals totaled
$76.6 billion in 2018, which included a shortfall of $56.9 billion for Medicare
and $19.7 billion for Medicaid.
In 2018, 66% of surveyed hospitals received
Medicare payments less than cost and 61% received Medicaid payments less than
cost.
Hospitals received payment of only 87 cents for
every dollar spent caring for Medicare patients in 2018.
Hospitals received payment of 89 cents for every
dollar spent caring for Medicaid patients in 2018.
Additionally, according the “AHA Hospital Statistics 2020 Edition,” the total number of admissions for all US hospitals in 2018 was 36,353,946, while total expenses for all US hospitals in the same year totaled an astronomical $1,112,207,387,000.
With more convenient and less expensive options for medical
care are becoming increasingly available to consumers, competition for
outpatients will continue to increase. In the interest of producing new revenue
sources—or just maintaining existing revenues—it would be prudent for clinical
laboratory leaders to develop strategies for providing lab testing services to
the growing number of outpatient ambulatory healthcare providers that compete
with hospital ERs.
In a federal lawsuit, seven healthcare organizations and hospitals systems allege HHS exceeded its statutory authority and clinical laboratories will want to watch how this court case unfolds
There is quite a brouhaha over the final new federal rule requiring hospitals to allow patients and the public to see the prices they charge for services—including clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology prices. Some very influential hospital associations and healthcare systems are opposing implementation of this rule.
For more than a decade, Dark Daily has
reported on the federal government’s efforts to enact pricing transparency in
healthcare. In many e-briefings, we advised pathologists
and medical
laboratory leaders that the outcome of those efforts will likely affect
clinical laboratory workflows and bottom lines, and that many clinical laboratories
are not prepared to negotiate directly with customers over the price of their
services.
Now, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS) has passed a final
rule (CMS-1717-F2) that expands on an earlier rule mandating pricing
transparency for hospital procedures—including medical
laboratory and anatomic
pathology services. This new rule requires hospitals to disclose not only
their chargemaster
prices, but also prices negotiated with payers.
Hospital leaders are not pleased by this, and though the
final rule does not go into effect until January 1, 2021, they are already
pushing back through representative organizations such as the American Hospital Association (AHA), which has
brought a lawsuit to federal court that seeks to overturn the new rule.
New Transparency Rules Include Rates Negotiated with Health
Insurers
Beginning Jan. 1, 2019, CMS required hospitals to disclose chargemaster prices to customers. These are essentially the “list prices” for hospital procedures. However, as Dark Daily reported in “California Healthline Report Finds Hospital Chargemaster Prices Fluctuate Dramatically Even Among Hospitals Located Near Each Other,” June 12, 2019, there were problems. Chargemaster prices typically do not reflect the actual fees charged to patients or payers. Thus, consumers still found it problematic to price shop before committing to healthcare.
In an effort to remedy this, the
new 2020 final rule expands the pricing information hospitals are required to
provide and includes several categories of prices negotiated with health insurers.
Simultaneous to this final rule, CMS also announced a
proposed rule (CMS-9915-P) titled, “Transparency
in Coverage,” that if passed, will require health insurers to disclose
pricing for healthcare services as well.
In a federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) press
release, the Trump Administration stated that both rules will “increase
price transparency to empower patients and increase competition among all
hospitals, group health plans, and health insurance issuers in the individual
and group markets.”
“Under the status quo, healthcare prices are about as clear
as mud to patients,” said CMS Administrator Seema Verma in the HHS press
release. “This final rule and the proposed rule will bring forward the
transparency we need to finally begin reducing the overall healthcare costs.”
AHA Sues HHS in Federal Court
In response, four hospital organizations and three health
systems filed a
lawsuit in federal court against the HHS. The suit alleges the final rule
“exceeds the agency’s statutory authority,” and violates the First Amendment by
requiring public disclosure of prices negotiated with payers. This information,
they say, is “highly confidential and commercially sensitive.”
In court
documents, the plaintiffs argue that “the Final Rule is arbitrary and
capricious and lacks any rational basis. The agency’s explanation for the Final
Rule runs counter to both logic and evidence. In fact, it is belied by the
agency’s own research regarding what patients care about most when selecting a
hospital: their own out-of-pocket costs. The agency’s justification for the
Final Rule therefore does not stand up to even the barest of scrutiny. That is
the epitome of arbitrary and capricious agency action.”
A brief
filed by the plaintiffs contends that patients’ actual out-of-pocket costs
are determined by a complex set of factors and aren’t reflected in negotiated
rates. In addition, the brief states, “the sheer burden of compliance with the
rule is staggering, and way out of line with any projected benefits associated
with the rule.”
Charles N. Kahn III (above), President and CEO, Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), said in an AHA press release that, “CMS’ final rule fails to offer patients easy-to-understand information regarding their out-of-pocket obligations for care, so we feel obligated to contest the regulation. We contend the agency exceeded its authority and should go back to the drawing board.” (Photo copyright: FAH.)
Details of the Final Rule on Hospital Price Transparency
If it goes forward, starting Jan. 1, 2021, the final rule
requires hospitals to disclose five types of standard charges, according to the
HHS and AHA press releases:
The chargemaster rate, also known as the gross
charge;
The discounted cash price, which CMS defines as
the amount the hospital will accept from self-paying patients;
The payer-specific negotiated charge, defined as
“the charge that the hospital has negotiated with a third-party payer for an
item or service.” This would be the charge that applies if a patient uses an
in-network provider;
The maximum charge negotiated with payers; and
The minimum charge negotiated with payers.
Hospitals must list these charges for all billable “items
and services,” including medical laboratory and pathology services, in a
machine-readable format, such as a CSV file that
can be opened in a spreadsheet program.
In addition, they must provide a “consumer-friendly” list of charges for at least 300 “shoppable services,” defined as services that consumers can schedule in advance. Each list would include 70 services specified by CMS and an additional 230 services selected by the hospital.
The CMS-specified shoppable services include 14 laboratory
and pathology tests. They include:
Basic metabolic panel
Blood test, comprehensive group of blood
chemicals
Obstetric blood test panel
Blood test, lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides)
Kidney function panel test
Liver function blood test panel
Manual urinalysis test with examination using
microscope
Automated urinalysis test
PSA (prostate specific antigen)
Blood test, thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH)
Complete blood cell count, with differential
white blood cells, automated
Complete blood count, automated
Blood test, clotting time
Coagulation assessment blood test
Blood Brother Clinical Laboratories Also Affected by
Price Transparency
Price transparency is also at the center of two federal
lawsuits involving Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp) and Quest
Diagnostics. The Dark Report, Dark Daily’s sister publication, reported
on these suits in “Lawsuits
Alleging Overcharges to Proceed in Two Courts in 2020,” December 16, 2019.
The plaintiffs in those cases are uninsured or underinsured
customers who claim they were charged far more for medical laboratory tests
than customers covered by insurance. In both cases, customers were charged at
the chargemaster rates. The plaintiffs contend that the medical laboratories
should have disclosed their rates in advance.
Whichever way this all goes, clinical laboratories will need
to monitor the multiple efforts by the states and the federal government to
make it easy for patients to see the prices of hospital, physician, and other
medical services in advance of treatment. This has the potential to be a disruptive
trend, particularly for hospitals.
