The No Surprises Act, passed as part of the COVID-19 relief package, ensures patients do not receive surprise bills after out-of-network care, including hospital-based physicians such as pathologists
Consumer demand for price transparency in healthcare has been gaining support in Congress after several high-profile cases involving surprise medical billing received widespread reporting. Dark Daily covered many of these cases over the years.
Now, after initial opposition and months of legislative wrangling, organizations representing medical laboratories and clinical pathologists have expressed support for new federal legislation that aims to protect patients from surprise medical bills, including for clinical pathology and anatomic pathology services.
The new law Congress passed is known as the No Surprises Act (H.R.3630) and is part of the $900 billion COVID relief and government funding package signed by President Trump on December 27.
The law addresses the practice of “balance billing,” in which patients receive surprise bills for out-of-network medical services even when they use in-network providers. An ASCP policy statement noted that “a patient (consumer) may receive a bill for an episode of care or service they believed to be in-network and therefore covered by their insurance, but was in fact out-of-network.” This, according to the ASCP, “occurs most often in emergency situations, but specialties like pathology, radiology, and anesthesiology are affected as well.”
Most portions of the No Surprises Act take effect on January 1, 2022. The law prohibits balance billing for emergency care, air ambulance transport, or, in most cases, non-emergency care from in-network providers. Instead, if a patient unknowingly receives services from an out-of-network provider, they are liable only for co-pays and deductibles they would have paid for in-network care.
New Law Bars Pathologists from Balance Billing without Advance Patient Consent
The law permits balance billing under some circumstances, but only if the patient gives advance consent. And some specialties, including pathologists, are barred entirely from balance billing.
The law also establishes a process for determining how healthcare providers are reimbursed when a patient receives out-of-network care. The specifics of that process proved to be a major sticking point for providers. In states that have their own surprise-billing protections, payment will generally be determined by state law. Otherwise, payers and providers have 30 days to negotiate payment. If they can’t agree, payment is determined by an arbiter as part of an independent dispute resolution (IDR) process.
Early Proposal Drew Opposition
An early proposal to prohibit surprise billing drew opposition from a wide range of medical societies, including the ASCP, CAP, and the American Medical Association (AMA).
All were signatories to a July 29, 2020, letter sent to leaders of the US Senate and House of Representatives urging them to hold off from enacting surprise billing protections as part of COVID relief legislation. Though the groups agreed in principle with the need to protect patients from surprise billing, they contended that the proposed legislation leaned too heavily in favor of insurers, an ASCP news release noted.
“Legislative proposals that would dictate a set payment rate for unanticipated out-of-network care are neither market-based nor equitable, and do not account for the myriad inputs that factor into payment negotiations between insurers and providers,” the letter stated. “These proposals will only incentivize insurers to further narrow their provider networks and would also result in a massive financial windfall for insurers. As such, we oppose the setting of a payment rate in statute and are particularly concerned by proposals that would undermine hospitals and front-line caregivers during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
On December 11, leaders of key House and Senate committees announced agreement on a bipartisan draft of the bill that appeared to address these concerns, including establishment of the arbitration process for resolving payment disputes.
However, in a letter sent to the committee chairs and ranking members, the AHA asked for changes in the dispute-resolution provisions, including a prohibition on considering Medicare or Medicaid rates during arbitration. “We are concerned that the IDR process may be skewed if the arbiter is able to consider public payer reimbursement rates, which are well known to be below the cost of providing care,” the association stated. However, legislators agreed to the change after last-minute negotiations.
“The AHA is pleased that Congress rejected approaches that would impose arbitrary rates on providers, which could have significant consequences far beyond the scope of surprise medical bills and impact access to hospital care,” AHA President and CEO Rick Pollack (above) said in a statement. “We also applaud Congress for rejecting attempts to base rates on public payers.” (Photo copyright: American Hospital Association.)
Dispute Resolution for Pathologists
The CAP also expressed support for the final bill. In a statement, CAP noted that “As the legislation evolved during the 116th Congress, CAP members met with their federal lawmakers to discuss the CAP’s policy priorities.
“Through the CAP’s engagement and collaboration with other physician associations, the legislation improved drastically,” the CAP stated. “Specifically, the CAP lobbied Congress to hold patients harmless, establish a fair reimbursement formula for services provided, deny insurers the ability to dictate payment, create an independent dispute resolution (IDR) process that pathologists can participate in, and require network adequacy standards for health insurers.”
As laboratory testing was identified by thousands of respondents to the University of Chicago survey as the top surprise bill, it is likely that billing and transparency in charges for clinical pathologist and anatomic pathologist will continue to be scrutinized by law makers and healthcare associations.
Consumer demand and federal requirements for price transparency affect how clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups meet patients’ expectations while navigating complex payer agreements
Regardless of a clinical laboratory’s payer mix and revenue cycle management (RCM) system, the demand for greater price transparency impacts laboratory services just as it does other healthcare services. Addressing new federal policies that support price transparency may require medical laboratory managers to alter how they approach RCM and patient communications.
Patient access management (PAM) is what some early-adopter medical labs and pathology groups are using to respond to these new federal policies and changing patient expectations. PAM can be an effective tool to fulfill complex payer requirements and implement consumer-friendly healthcare services. Not only does this comply with federal guidelines, it helps independent laboratories increase revenue by lowering denial rates.
How
and When Clinical Laboratories Should Implement Patient Access Management
Revenue
cycle experts say clinical laboratories are in a position to take an active
role in the pricing transparency debate.
“If labs don’t control the pricing narrative, someone else will,” stated Walt Williams, Director of Revenue Cycle Optimization and Strategy for Quadax, a firm that has studied revenue trends in healthcare for more than 40 years, in an exclusive interview with Dark Daily.
He
says, given these new demands on clinical laboratories and pathology groups,
implementing patient access management practices ensures a satisfactory patient
and physician experience and reduces the financial risk related to trends in
uncollected revenue.
“In this
age of increasing consumerism—along with the complex challenges of navigating
the payer landscape and pre-empting administrative denials—it’s no wonder
independent labs are turning to new patient access technology solutions to
avoid leaving money on the table,” Williams said.
Patient
access management solutions allow clinical laboratories to:
obtain
accurate patient demographic information,
verify
insurance coverage and eligibility, and
gain
clarity on payer rules regarding prior authorization and medical necessity.
These
capabilities enable medical laboratories to secure appropriate reimbursement
closer to the date of service. PAM also can provide the ordering-physician with
financial counseling and guidelines on a patient’s financial obligation. This
would be shared with the patient to help prevent surprise billing.
New
Fact of Life for Labs: Patients Are the New Payers
Medical laboratory patient-access representatives must employ proper patient-liability collection techniques before, during, and after each date of service. This has become increasingly challenging as more patients join high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) and take on more financial responsibility. The problem for labs is that meeting the expectations of consumers requires a different toolset than meeting the needs of complex payer requirements.
Additionally, evolving policies in prior authorization, medical necessity, and coding (see, “Labs Get High Denial Rates Under New NCCI Rules,” The Dark Report) are resulting in potential payment traps for patients and known revenue traps for providers and suppliers.
The graphic above, taken from a KFF Health Tracking Poll conducted in 2018, lists “unexpected medical bills” as the top financial fear among Americans. “Four in 10 (39%) insured adults ages 18-64 say there has been a time in the past 12 months when they received care from a doctor, hospital, or lab that they thought was covered and their health plan either didn’t cover the bill at all or covered less than they expected,” the KFF poll notes. This illustrates the critical importance for clinical laboratories to implement patient access management protocols. (Graphic copyright: Kaiser Family Foundation.)
While
the current high cost of healthcare will likely continue for some time,
publishing information about the lab’s policies can help consumers view choices
when it comes to selecting laboratory tests and anticipating potential payment
obligations.
Henry Ford Health System, for example, posted information about prior authorization as it relates to its pathology and laboratory services.
Consumer-Facing
Price Transparency and CMS Requirements
Rooted
in price transparency regulations issued in July 2018, the federal Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) encouraged “all providers and suppliers of
healthcare services to undertake efforts to engage in consumer-friendly
communication of their charges to help patients understand what their potential
financial liability might be for services they obtain, and to enable patients
to compare charges for similar services. We encourage providers and suppliers
to update this information at least annually, or more often as appropriate, to
reflect current charges.”
How
should we define “standard charges” in provider and supplier settings? Is the
best measure of a provider’s or supplier’s standard charges its chargemaster,
price list, or charge list?
What
types of information would be most beneficial to patients … enable patients to
use charge and cost information in their decision-making?
How
can information on out-of-pocket costs be provided to better support patient
choice and decision-making? What can be done to better inform patients of their
financial obligations?
What
changes would need to be made by providers and suppliers to provide patients
with information on what Medicare pays for a particular service performed by
that provider or supplier?
These
considerations and more can help the development of patient access management
and consumer-friendly communication initiatives that are tailored to clinical laboratory
services.
Patient
Access Management for Clinical Laboratories
Patient
access management facilitates critical components of the revenue cycle.
However, it must be fine-tuned to fit each healthcare provider’s unique revenue
cycle process. This includes clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology
services.
“Having
business rules and workflows based on best practices to verify patient
demographics, support insurance discovery, and navigate prior authorizations
are now a minimum requirement for any healthcare provider to maintain financial
viability,” Williams notes.
To help clinical laboratories fulfill CMS’ patient access guidelines—including best practices for reversing the trend of uncollected revenue—a free white paper titled, “Patient Access Antidote: Retaining More Revenue with Front-End Solutions,” has been published by Dark Daily in partnership with Quadax.
The
white paper will provide useful insights regarding front-end patient access
management. And it will equip clinical laboratories and pathology groups with
the expert tools and solutions they need to optimize their cash flow and
successfully meet key revenue cycle objectives.
