Judge decides injuries claimed by pathologists are not antitrust injuries and that plaintiffs have no standing to bring antitrust lawsuit
Four pathologists who filed an antitrust lawsuit alleging their former employer “engaged in a series of unfair and deceptive practices” in an effort to maintain a monopoly on clinical pathology services in central Iowa had their lawsuit dismissed by a federal judge. The plaintiffs appealed the decision. Two related state lawsuits are still pending, one in which the plaintiffs are the defendants.
It is common for pathologists in a community to leave one pathology practice and either establish a new practice or join a nearby practice. What is less common is litigation that involves the original group practice and the departed pathologists.
Thus, this example of lawsuits and counter lawsuits is interesting because it creates court rulings about the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments asserted by both plaintiffs and defendants in situations where pathologists leave their employer but continue to practice in the same community.
The court decisions in these cases demonstrate how judges are handling these issues involving antitrust allegations, market share, and non-compete agreements.
“As a result of Defendants’ alleged conduct, Goldfinch asserts its ability to compete has been severely undermined and ‘has the potential to harm patients,’” wrote federal judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, JD (above), in her order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. “These injuries are not antitrust injuries because they do not stem from conduct affecting competition in the pathology and dermatopathology markets generally.” Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology practices can learn from the decisions handed down in this court case. (Photo copyright: Wikipedia.)
Pathologists Accuse Defendants of Suppressing Competition
In their original complaint, which was filed May 13, 2024, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, the plaintiffs said that, beginning in 2021, IPA “strongly pressured” them to sign an employment agreement that would have prevented them from launching a competing practice in the Des Moines area. They refused to comply, but “the administrator of these corporations told these pathologists that the Agreement was in effect even though they had not signed it,” the complaint states.
On October 2022, they informed IPA that they intended to leave to form their own pathology practice, according to the complaint.
The new practice, Goldfinch Laboratory in Urbandale, Iowa, began offering pathology services in February 2023.
“Prior to the formation of Goldfinch, IPA was the only independent pathology practice in central Iowa that was not exclusively tied to one source of referrals,” the complaint states. In addition, “it was the only independent pathology practice in central Iowa that offered dermatopathology services.”
After they notified IPA and RLC of their intention to leave, the plaintiffs alleged that the employer engaged in a series of efforts to “suppress competition” and monopolize the local market for pathology and dermatopathology services.
Plaintiffs Allege Defendants’ Behavior Could Have Harmed Patients
The pathologists were barred from entering IPA’s offices, leaving potential referring physicians with the impression that “these pathologists were no longer practicing,” the complaint states, and preventing them from “maintaining on-going relations with potential referral sources.”
IPA, the complaint alleges, “refused to share biopsy slides with Goldfinch pathologists when those slides were required for continuity of care of the patient—even though this practice was contrary to the standard of care and could well have caused harm to patients.” The complaint characterized this as “an effort to induce referral sources not to make referrals to Goldfinch.”
The plaintiffs also alleged that IPA and RLC made “false and deceptive statements to dissuade referral sources from making referrals to Goldfinch,” for example by claiming that legal problems would force the practice to close.
Given their “monopoly power” in the local market, the plaintiffs argued, IPA and RLC “were able to charge supracompetitive prices for their services.” A $1.4 million contract with one hospital corporation was “in the top 5% of Part A contracts in the United States,” the complaint alleges, and rural hospitals paid “at least 400% of the actual Medicare fee schedule amount for the technical component of pathology services for Medicare patients.”
Defendants’ Response to Allegations
In their motion to dismiss the suit, the defendants argued that Goldfinch was “a classic ‘disgruntled competitor’” that had not demonstrated an “antitrust injury” as defined by federal and state law.
“Goldfinch’s owners used to work for IPA and RLC, voluntarily left, and now seek to litigate their personal financial losses under the guise of federal and state antitrust claims,” the motion states.
The defendants also argued that Goldfinch lacked standing to file an antitrust claim.
Goldfinch “alleges the ‘antitrust practices’ of IPA and RLC are harmful to patients and other payers for pathology and dermatopathology services,” the motion states. “But patients and payers are quite capable of noticing and seeking redress for the alleged harms and Goldfinch need not do so on their behalf.”
In addition, the defendants argued, Goldfinch failed to adequately define a “plausible” product market or geographic market that was subject to the alleged monopoly power.
“Goldfinch’s alleged geographic market is vaguely ill-defined as ‘central Iowa,’” the motion states. “But there is a difference between the service area and a geographic market.” The motion cited an earlier decision in which the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit “deemed a relevant market for a pathology practice to be nationwide.”
“As a result of Defendants’ alleged conduct, Goldfinch asserts its ability to compete has been severely undermined and ‘has the potential to harm patients,’” she wrote. “These injuries are not antitrust injuries because they do not stem from conduct affecting competition in the pathology and dermatopathology markets generally. These injuries, instead, are a result of Defendants’ alleged actions targeting Goldfinch and demonstrate an injury to Goldfinch as a competitor—the loss of some patients and referral sources.”
She also agreed with the defendants that Goldfinch lacked sufficient standing to bring an antitrust claim, and that the plaintiffs had failed “to adequately allege a relevant market for pathology and dermatopathology services.”
Goldfinch filed a Notice of Appeal on Jan. 10.
State Lawsuits Pending
Meanwhile, both parties are awaiting a decision in a state court lawsuit in which the Goldfinch partners are the defendants, according to the Iowa Capital Dispatch.
IPA filed the suit late in 2022, shortly after learning that the four pathologists planned to leave and start their own practice. It alleged “breach of contract, breach of the common law duty of loyalty, civil conspiracy and tortious interference,” Iowa Capital Dispatchreported at the time, claiming that the pathologists were improperly attempting to lure clients away.
In a related case, Goldfinch pathologists Milless and Halverson have filed a state discrimination lawsuit against their former employer, “alleging they were paid $200,000 to $350,000 annually, which they claim was far less than what some of the less qualified male doctors were paid,” Iowa Capital Dispatch reported. That case goes to trial in August.
This is a plethora of lawsuits involving pathologists and the pathology practices in the communities where they formally practiced. Pathologists and group pathology managers may find useful insights from a study of the legal arguments made by the two parties, as well as the decisions laid down by judges in these court cases.
Clinical laboratories are being squeezed on both sides as rising healthcare costs affect their patients while increasing health plan costs impact their employees’ health coverage
When UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was murdered on Dec. 4, the nation’s attention focused on the negative impact ever-increasing costs of healthcare coverage is having on the average American. Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups experience this trend firsthand as annual increases in the cost of health plans affect their employees.
To understand just how raw the public is feeling about health insurance, consider that in a recent Emerson College poll, 41% of respondents ages 18-29 stated that Thompson’s murder was “completely” or “somewhat” acceptable.
While the majority of the country believes that such violence is not an acceptable way to solve one’s problems, the message is clear that Americans’ waning trust in health insurance companies has reached unhealthy levels.
“Health insurance costs are far outpacing inflation, leaving more consumers on the hook each year for thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses. At the same time, some insurers are rejecting nearly one in five claims. That double whammy is leaving Americans paying more for coverage yet sometimes feeling like they’re getting less in return,” CBS News reported.
Twenty-five years of increases from the insurance industry make it clear why the relationships between healthcare consumers and insurance companies has soured.
“Employers are shelling out the equivalent of buying an economy car for every worker every year to pay for family coverage,” said Kaiser Family Foundation President and CEO Drew Altman (above) in a news release. “In the tight labor market in recent years, they have not been able to continue offloading costs onto workers who are already struggling with healthcare bills.” Clinical laboratories and pathology groups are among those employers struggling to provide affordable health coverage for their employees. (Photo copyright. Kaiser Family Foundation.)
People Are Frustrated
The cost of living in America has risen dramatically in the past decade. So much so that people are increasingly becoming frustrated and lashing out against companies that appear to be making record profits while their customers struggle to pay for their products and services.
A recent Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) Health Tracking Poll found that “About one in five adults (19%) say they have difficulty affording their bills each month and about four in 10 (37%) say they are just able to afford their bills each month, while a little over four in 10 (44%) say they are both able to pay their bills and have some money left over.”
Simultaneously, according to KFF, “Employees’ share of their [health insurance] premiums are also on the rise, with a worker with family coverage typically paying premiums of $5,700 per year in 2017, the most recent year for that data, up from about $1,600 in 2000. … The average family deductible—the amount paid out-of-pocket before insurance kicks in—has increased from $2,500 in 2013 to $3,700 in 2023.”
This double-whammy in costs has a growing number of American’s worrying about unexpected healthcare bills and the overall cost of keeping their families adequately covered for the future.
“We’ve gotten to a point where healthcare is so inaccessible and unaffordable, people are justified in their frustrations,” said Céline Gounder, MD, a CBS News medical contributor and editor-at-large for public health at KFF Health News.
The chart above taken from a KFF Health Tracking Poll (Jan. 30-Feb. 7, 2024) shows participants’ answers when asked, “How worried, if at all, are you about being able to afford each of the following for you and your family?” Results indicate, according to KFF, that three in four people polled are worried about paying future healthcare bills and covering increasing insurance costs. (Graphic copyright: KFF.)
AI and Coverage Denials
Coverage denials is another sore spot for many people, impacting nearly one in five claims in nongroup qualified health plans in 2021, KFF found. This ranged from 2% to 49% depending on the company.
“When you are paying for something, they don’t give it to you, and they keep raising prices … you will be frustrated by that,” Holden Karau, a software engineer and creator of Fight Health Insurance, a free online service that helps people appeal their denials, told CBS News. Karau’s company uses artificial intelligence (AI) to help customers create appeal letters.
But the use of AI in healthcare coverage has also drawn criticism. Insurance companies are increasingly using AI to review claims and issue denials, and the lack of transparency has led to lawsuits. Last year, CBS News covered lawsuits brought by the families of two deceased individuals who accused UnitedHealthcare of “knowingly” using a “faulty” AI algorithm to deny the patients medically necessary treatments.
Karau noted, “With AI tools on the insurance side, they have very little negative consequences for denying procedures,” CBS News reported. “We are seeing really high denial rates triggered by AI. And on the patient and provider side, they don’t have the tools to fight back,” she added.
“Unhappiness with insurers stems from two things: ‘I’m sick and I’m getting hassled,’ and the second is very much cost—‘I’m paying more than I used to, and I’m paying more than my wages went up,’” Rob Andrews, CEO of Health Transformation Alliance, a company that helps healthcare providers and other self-insured companies improve coverage for their employees, told CBS News. “A lot of people think they are getting less,” he added.
Effects on Clinical Laboratories
Even as individuals and families pay more money each year in healthcare premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket expenses, clinical laboratories have seen payers cut reimbursement for many lab tests. Thus, labs are dealing with a double-squeeze on their finances. On the income side, reimbursement for tests is under pressure, while on the cost side, the cost of health benefits for employees climbs annually.
Clinical lab and pathology managers will want to stay aware of these trends and take advantage of any opportunity to lower costs and pass on those savings to their patients.
Microbiologists and clinical laboratory professionals should play a key role in the ordering and use of microbiome testing
International experts in the field of microbiome testing recently published a consensus document that establishes guidelines for the use and distribution of microbiota diagnostics they claim are long overdue. Companies offering direct-to-consumer (DTC) microbiome test kits continue to increase in number and popularity. But some experts in the human microbiome field—including microbiologists and clinical laboratory professionals—remain apprehensive regarding the science behind this type of home testing.
A Gemelli University news release states, “The intestinal microbiota could perhaps one day become a routine tool for the early diagnosis of many diseases and treatment guidance, but at the moment there is a lack of solid scientific evidence to support these indications. Yet, day by day, the offers of commercial kits are multiplying to carry out do-it-yourself tests, at the moment completely devoid of scientific significance and solidity.”
It continues, “To put a stop to this drift, a panel of international experts, coordinated by Dr. Gianluca Ianiro, has drafted the ‘instructions for use’ for best practices related to microbiota testing and recommendations for its indications, analysis methods, presentation of results and potential clinical applications.”
“This document marks a decisive step towards a standardization that has become indispensable making the microbiota an increasingly integrated element in personalized medicine,” said gastroenterologist Antonio Gasbarrini, MD (above), dean of the faculty of medicine and surgery and full professor of internal medicine at Catholic University of the Sacred Heart. “In the clinical context, these guidelines will be essential to translate research progress into concrete applications, improving the management of many gastroenterological and systemic diseases related to the microbiota,” he added. Microbiologists and clinical laboratory managers may want to follow efforts to promote these guidelines, both within healthcare and as they relate to consumers ordering their own microbiome tests. (Photo copyright: Agostino Gemelli University.)
Our Second Brain
The gut microbiome consists of the microorganisms that reside in the human gut and the small and large intestines. This ecosystem plays a major role in an individual’s health as it aids in digestion and metabolism. It also helps control inflammation and can strengthen the immune system.
“[The gut microbiome] contains all the microbes that reside within our intestinal tract. And those microbes are comprised of bacteria, fungi, yeast and viruses,” said Gail Cresci, PhD, RD, Director, Nutrition Research Center for Human Nutrition at the Cleveland Clinic in a Health Essentials article.
“What we’ve learned over the years is that there’s a lot of crosstalk between your gut microbiome and your body,” she added.
A healthy gut microbiome is imperative for good human health. An unhealthy gut microbiome can lead to certain diseases and even have a negative effect on mental health and mood.
“Your gut health is so important because studies really do indicate that our gut health plays a huge role in our overall health,” stated Kristin Kirkpatrick, MS, RDN, a dietician at the Cleveland Clinic Department of Wellness and Preventative Medicine, in the article. “It impacts our risk of chronic conditions, our ability to manage our weight, even our immune system. … There is so much attention and research on the microbiome and gut health now that experts often refer to it as the ‘second brain.’”
Future of Microbiome Testing
In their consensus document, the scientists wrote, “We convened an international multidisciplinary expert panel to standardize best practices of microbiome testing for clinical implementation, including recommendations on general principles and minimum requirements for their provision, indications, pre-testing protocols, method of analyses, reporting of results, and potential clinical value. We also evaluated current knowledge gaps and future directions in this field.”
The team’s intent is to provide guidelines and define quality standards and accuracy for microbiome testing to ensure consumers are receiving factual information.
“In recent years, the intestinal microbiota has taken on a key role as a diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic tool,” said gastroenterology surgeon Serena Porcari, MD, of Gemelli University Hospital in Italy, in the Gemelli news release. “From this point of view, the first step, for a targeted modulation of the microbiota itself, is to obtain a standardization of its analysis, regulated according to the definition of minimum criteria for performing the test.”
The team also evaluated disparities between various tests and anticipated what lies ahead for the future of microbiome testing. In addition, they assessed ways to minimize inappropriate testing and established a framework for the development of evidence-based testing and the use of human microbiota diagnostics in clinical medicine.
“This consensus document represents a crucial step towards bringing order to the current panorama of diagnostic tests on the intestinal microbiota,” said Maurizio Sanguinetti, MD, director of the department of laboratory and hematological sciences at Gemelli Polyclinic Foundation, in the news release. “The diagnostic characterization of the intestinal microbiota must be based on rigorous standards, in order to guarantee reliable and clinically useful results. It is not a simple laboratory test, but a complex tool that requires a deep understanding of microbial dynamics and their impact on human health.
“This is why these analyses must be conducted by highly qualified personnel with specific expertise in clinical microbiology and bioinformatics,” he emphasized. “In our microbiology laboratory at the Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli, we already apply diagnostic tests on the intestinal microbiota following the principles and best practices outlined in the document.
“It is essential to invest in the training of future physicians and microbiologists so that they acquire the necessary skills to correctly interpret the results of these tests and apply them effectively in clinical practice. This document provides a valuable basis to guide not only the current use of the tests, but also their future development, always with a view to evidence-based and personalized medicine,” Sanguinetti concluded.
With popularity of microbiome testing on the rise, it’s important that microbiologists and clinical laboratory professionals stay informed on the latest developments in the field of microbiome diagnostics to protect healthcare consumers and their patients.
Nearly 100,000 patients submitted saliva samples to a genetic testing laboratory, providing insights into their disease risk
Researchers at Mayo Clinic have employed next-generation sequencing technology to produce a massive collection of exome data from more than 100,000 patients, offering a detailed look at genetic variants that predispose people to certain diseases. The study, known as Tapestry, was administered by doctors and scientists from the clinic’s Center for Individualized Medicine and produced the “largest-ever collection of exome data, which include genes that code for proteins—key to understanding health and disease,” according to a Mayo Clinic news release.
For our clinical laboratory professionals, this shows the keen interest that a substantial portion of the population has in using their personal genetic data to help physicians identify their risk for many diseases and types of cancer. This support by healthcare consumers is a sign that labs should be devoting attention and resources to providing these types of gene sequencing services.
As Mayo explained in the news release, the exome includes nearly 20,000 genes that code for proteins. The researchers used the dataset to analyze genes associated with higher risk of heart disease and stroke along with several types of cancer. They noted that the data, which is now available to other researchers, will likely provide insights into other diseases as well, the news release notes.
“What we’ve accomplished with the Tapestry study is a blueprint for future endeavors in medical science,” said gastroenterologist and lead researcher Konstantinos Lazaridis, MD (above), in the news story. “It demonstrates that through innovation, determination and collaboration, we can deeply advance our understanding of DNA function and eventually other bio-molecules like RNA, proteins and metabolites, turning them into novel diagnostic tools to improve health, prevent illness, and even treat disease.” Some of these newly identified genetic markers may be incorporated into new clinical laboratory assays. (Photo copyright: Mayo Clinic.)
How Mayo Conducted the Tapestry Study
One notable aspect of the study was its methodology. The study launched in July 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since many patients were quarantined, researchers conducted the study remotely, without the need for the patients to visit a Mayo facility. It ran for five years through May 31, 2024. The news release notes that it’s the largest decentralized clinical trial ever conducted by the Mayo Clinic.
The researchers identified 1.3 million patients from the main Mayo Clinic campuses in Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida who met the following eligibility criteria:
Participants had to be 18 or older,
they had to have internet and email access, and
be sufficiently proficient in speaking and reading English.
More than 114,000 patients consented to participate, but some later withdrew, resulting in a final sample of 98,222 individuals. Approximately two-thirds were women. Mean age was 57 (61.9 for men and 54.3 for women).
“It was a tremendous effort,” said Mayo Clinic gastroenterologist and lead researcher Konstantinos Lazaridis, MD, in the news release. “The engagement of such a number of participants in a relatively short time and during a pandemic showcased the trust and the dedication not only of our team but also of our patients.”
He added that the researchers “learned valuable lessons about some patients’ decisions not to participate in Tapestry, which will be the focus of future publications.”
Three Specific Genes
Enrolled patients were invited to visit a website, where they could view a video and submit an eligibility form. Once approved, they completed a digital consent agreement and received a saliva collection kit. Participants were also invited to provide information about their family history.
Helix, a clinical laboratory company headquartered in San Mateo, Calif., performed the exome sequencing.
Though Helix performed whole exome sequencing, the researchers were most interested in three specific sets of genes:
Patients received clinical results directly from Helix along with information about their ancestry. Clinical results were also transmitted to Mayo Clinic for inclusion in patients’ electronic health records (EHRs).
Among the participants, approximately 1,800 (1.9%) had what the researchers described as “actionable pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants.” About half of these were BRCA1/2.
These patients were invited to speak with a genetic counselor and encouraged to undergo additional testing to confirm the variants.
Tapestry Genomic Registry
In addition to the impact on the participants, Mayo Clinic’s now has an enormous amount of raw sequencing data stored in the Tapestry Genomic Registry, where it will be available for future research.
The database “has become a valuable resource for Mayo’s scientific community, with 118 research requests submitted,” the researchers wrote in the news release. Mayo has distribution more than a million exome datasets to other genetic researchers.
“What we’ve accomplished with the Tapestry study is a blueprint for future endeavors in medical science,” Lazaridis noted. “It demonstrates that through innovation, determination, and collaboration, we can deeply advance our understanding of DNA function and eventually other bio-molecules like RNA, proteins and metabolites, turning them into novel diagnostic tools to improve health, prevent illness, and even treat disease.”
Everything about this project is consistent with precision medicine, and the number of individuals discovered to have risk of cancers is relevant. Clinical laboratory professionals understand these ratios and the importance of early detection and early intervention.
Though the No Surprises Act was enacted to prevent such surprise billing, key aspects of the legislation are apparently not being enforced
Dani Yuengling thought she had properly prepared herself for the financial impact of a breast biopsy. After all, it’s a simple procedure, especially if done by fine needle aspiration (FNA). Then, the 35-year-old received a bill for $18,000! And that was after insurance and though she had received a much lower advanced quote, according to an NPR/Kaiser Health News (NPR/KHN) bill-of-the-month investigation.
So, what happened? And what can anatomic pathology groups and clinical laboratories do to ensure their patients don’t receive similar surprise bills?
Yuengling had lost her mother to breast cancer in 2017. Then, she found a lump in her own breast. Following a mammogram she decided to move forward with the biopsy. Her doctor referred her to Grand Strand Medical Center in Myrtle Beach, S.C.
But she needed to know how much the procedure would cost. Her health plan had a $6,000 deductible. She worried she might have to pay for the entire amount of a very expensive procedure.
However, the hospital’s online “Patient Payment Estimator” informed her that an uninsured patient typically pays about $1,400 for the procedure. Yuengling was relieved. She assumed that with insurance the amount would be even less, and thankfully, clinical laboratory test results of the biopsy found that she did not have breast cancer.
Then came the sticker shock! The bill broke down like this:
$17,979 was the total for her biopsy and everything that came with it.
Her insurer, Cigna, brought the cost down to the in-network negotiated rate of $8,424.14.
Her insurance then paid $3,254.47.
Yuengling was responsible for $5,169.67 which was the balance of her deductible.
So, why was the amount Yuengling owed higher than the bill would have been if she had been uninsured and paid cash for the procedure?
According to the NPR/KHN investigation, this is not an uncommon occurrence. The investigators reported that nearly 30% of American workers have high deductible health plans (HDHPs) and may face larger expenses than what a hospital’s cash price would have been for uninsured individuals.
Dani Yuengling (above) knew she had to take the lump in her breast seriously. Her mother had died of breast cancer. “It was the hardest experience, seeing her suffer,” Yuengling told NPR/KHN. Fortunately, following a biopsy procedure, clinical laboratory testing showed she was cancer free. But the bill for the procedure was shockingly higher than she’d expected based on the hospital’s patient payment estimator. (Photo copyright: Kaiser Health News.)
Take the Cash Price
In 2021, Bai was part of a John’s Hopkins research team that analyzed US hospital cash prices compared with commercial negotiated rates for specific healthcare services.
“The 70 CMS-specified hospital services represent 74 unique Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) diagnosis related group codes (four services were represented by two codes),” the authors wrote. “Cash prices and payer-specific negotiated prices for the 70 services were obtained from Turquoise Health, a data service company that specializes in collecting pricing information from hospitals.”
They continued, “Cash prices can affect the cost exposure of 26 million uninsured individuals and concern nearly one-third of US workers enrolled in high-deductible health plans, who are often responsible to pay for medical bills without a third-party contribution and thus are interested in having access to low cash prices. In contrast with the commercial price negotiated bilaterally between hospitals and insurers providing insurance plans, the cash price is determined unilaterally by the hospital and might be expected to be higher than negotiated prices.”
However, the team’s research found otherwise. “Across the 70 CMS-specified services … some hospitals set their cash price comparable to or lower than their commercial negotiated price,” they concluded.
Bai advises patients to ask healthcare providers about the cash price before undergoing any procedure no matter what their insurance status is. “It should be a norm,” she told NPR/KHN.
Federal No Surprises Act is not Foolproof
Yuengling was charged an extraordinarily high amount for her procedure compared to other hospitals in her area. Fair Health Consumer estimates the cost of the procedure Yuengling received cost an average of $3,500 at other local hospitals. Uninsured patients likely pay even less.
A spokesperson for Grand Street Medical Center blamed the inaccurate estimate on “a glitch” in the payment estimator system. The hospital has since removed some procedures from the tool until it can be corrected. Yuengling initially disputed the charge with the hospital but in the end decided to pay the full amount she owed.
NPR/KHN recommends that insured patients consult with their health insurance company to get an estimate before any procedure. That is the purpose of the No Surprises Act which was enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA).
The law requires health insurance companies to provide their members with an estimate of medical costs upon their request. The Act also empowers patients to file federal complaints about their medical bills.
Patients who find themselves in a similar situation to Yuengling may want to consider paying the cash price for the procedure. Although this may not be common practice, Jacqueline Fox, JD, a healthcare attorney and professor of law at the University of South Carolina’s Joseph F. Rice School of Law, told NPR/KHN that there is not a law she is aware of that would prohibit patients from doing so.
Anatomic pathology groups and clinical laboratories should check that their online prices and estimation tools comply with the No Surprises Act to ensure that what happened to Yuengling does not happen with their patients. They also could inform patients on how to pay cash for procedures if insurance rates are too high. Medical professionals and patients can work together to achieve transparency in healthcare pricing.
