No More Surprises - New Legislation on Out-of-Network Billing

Hospitals with decreasing cost-to-charge ratios bill greater surgical charges for similar outcomes

BACKGROUND

The cost-to-charge ratio reflects the markup of hospital services. A lower cost-to-charge ratio indicates lower costs and/or greater charges. This study examines factors associated with cost-to-charge ratio trends to determine whether decreasing cost-to-charge ratio is associated with worse surgical outcomes.

METHODS

The Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration Inpatient database (2018-2020) was queried for common surgical procedures and linked to the Distressed Communities Index, RAND Corporation Hospital data, Center for Medicare Services Cost Reports, and American Hospital Association data. Only hospitals with monotonically increasing or decreasing cost-to-charge ratio were included in the study. Univariable analysis compared these hospitals. Using patient-level data, interpretable machine learning predicted cost-to-charge ratio trend while identifying influential factors.

RESULTS

The cohort had 67 hospitals (27 increasing cost-to-charge ratio and 40 decreasing cost-to-charge ratio) with 35,661 surgeries. Decreasing cost-to-charge ratio hospitals were more often proprietarily owned (78% vs 33%, P = .01) and had greater mean total charges ($134,349 ± $114,510 vs $77,185 ± $82,027, P < .01) with marginally greater mean estimated costs ($14,863 ± $12,343 vs $14,458 ± $15,440, P < .01). Patients from decreasing cost-to-charge ratio hospitals had greater rates of most comorbidities (P < .05) but no difference in mortality or overall complications. Machine-learning models revealed charges rather than clinical factors as most influential in cost-to-charge ratio trend prediction.

CONCLUSIONS

Decreasing cost-to-charge ratio hospitals charge vastly more despite minimally greater estimated costs and no difference in outcomes. Although differences in case-mix existed, charges were the predominant differentiators. Patient clinical factors had far less of an impact.

Trends in Hospital Billing for Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Procedures from 2013 to 2020

BACKGROUND

 With greater acceptance of postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) as a safe and reliable treatment option, the role of plastic surgeons in breast cancer management continues to rise. As Medicare reimbursements for surgical procedures decline, hospitals may increase charges. Excessive markups can negatively affect uninsured and underinsured patients. We aimed to analyze mastectomy and breast reconstruction procedures to gain insights into recent trends in utilization and billing.

METHODS

 We queried the 2013 to 2020 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data with 14 Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes to collect service count numbers, hospital charges, and reimbursements. We calculated utilization (service counts per million female Medicare enrollees), weighted mean charges and reimbursements, and charge-to-reimbursement ratios (CRRs). We calculated total and annual percentage changes for the included CPT codes.

RESULTS

 Among the 14 CPT codes, 12 CPT codes (85.7%) with nonzero service counts were included. Utilization of mastectomy and breast reconstruction procedures decreased from 1,889 to 1,288 (-31.8%) procedures per million female Medicare beneficiaries from 2013 to 2020. While the utilization of immediate implant placements (CPT 19340) increased by 36.2%, the utilization of delayed implant placements (CPT 19342) decreased by 15.1%. Reimbursements for the included CPT codes changed minimally over time (-2.9%) but charges increased by 28.9%. These changes resulted in CRRs increasing from 3.3 to 4.4 (+33.3%) from 2013 to 2020. Free flap reconstructions (CPT 19364) had the highest CRRs throughout the study period, increasing from 7.0 in 2013 to 10.3 in 2020 (+47.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

 Our analysis of mastectomy and breast reconstruction procedures billed to Medicare Part B from 2013 to 2020 showed increasingly excessive procedural charges. Rises in hospital charges and CRRs may limit uninsured and underinsured patients from accessing necessary care for breast cancer management. Legislations that monitor hospital markups for PMBR procedures may be considered by policymakers.

The impact of health policy on surgical and trauma patients: Three key examples

Health policy impacts the way surgical and trauma patients access, recover from, and pay for the medical care we deliver. In this editorial, we highlight 3 major policy directives that have or will affect millions of surgical and injured patients-Medicaid expansion, surprise billing, and housing in previously redlined districts. In doing so, we aim to elucidate the mechanisms by which health policies impact our patients and encourage participation and inquiry among surgeons when new health policies are being proposed at a national, state, or local level.

Financial Viability of the No Surprises Act Independent Dispute Resolution Process: Radiology and Other Hospital-Based Specialties

BACKGROUND. The federal No Surprises Act (NSA), designed to eliminate surprise medical billing for out-of-network (OON) care for circumstances beyond patients' control, established the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process to settle clinician-payer payment disputes for OON care. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to assess the fraction of OON claims for which radiologists and other hospital-based specialists can expect to at least break even when challenging payer-determined payments through the NSA IDR process, as a measure of the process's financial viability. METHODS. This retrospective study extracted claims from a national commercial database (Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart) for hospital-based specialties occurring on the same day as in-network emergency department (ED) visits or inpatient stays from January 2017 to December 2021. OON claims were identified. OON claims batching was simulated using IDR rules. Maximum potential recovered payments from the IDR process were estimated as the difference between the charges and the allowed amount. The percentages of claims for which the maximum potential payment and one-quarter of this amount (a more realistic payment recovery estimate) would exceed IDR fees were determined, using US$150 and US$450 fee thresholds to approximate the range of final 2024 IDR fees. These values represented the percentage of OON claims that would be financially viable candidates for IDR submission. RESULTS. Among 76,221,264 claims for hospital-based specialties associated with in-network ED visits or inpatient stays, 1,482,973 (1.9%) were OON. The maximum potential payment exceeded fee thresholds of US$150 and US$450 for 55.0% and 32.1%, respectively, of batched OON claims for radiologists and 76.8% and 61.3% of batched OON claims for all other hospital-based specialties combined. At payment of one-quarter of that amount, these values were 26.9% and 10.6%, respectively, for radiologists and 56.6% and 38.4% for all other hospital-based specialties combined. CONCLUSION. The IDR process would be financially unviable for a substantial fraction of OON claims for hospital-based specialists (more so for radiology than for other such specialties). CLINICAL IMPACT. Although the NSA enacted important patient protections, IDR fees limit clinicians' opportunities to dispute payer-determined payments and potentially undermine their bargaining power in contract negotiations. Therefore, IDR rulemaking may negatively impact patient access to in-network care.

Surprise Billing in Elective Shoulder Surgery and Its Effect on Patient Satisfaction

Patients often receive multiple bills following surgery, which may come as a surprise to them if they are not appropriately informed or educated prior to surgery. The purpose of this study was to identify whether surprise billing occurs following shoulder rotator cuff repair and its effect on patient satisfaction. The study surveyed adult patients who underwent elective rotator cuff repair from January 2020 to October 2021. Patients were asked if they received unexpected bills after their surgery, as well as about details regarding those bills. Additionally, patients were asked about their medical insurance carrier, knowledge of the billing process prior to surgery, and how they felt the process could be improved. Finally, patients were asked how these bills and the overall billing process affected their surgical satisfaction. Of the 158 responses, 25% of the patients stated they received at least one surprise bill following their rotator cuff surgery, with 57% of these bills being greater than $1000. Patients who received surprise bills reported being significantly less satisfied with their surgery (P<.001) and felt their billing experience affected their surgical satisfaction (64% vs 9%, P<.001). One in 4 patients undergoing elective rotator cuff repair received a surprise bill following surgery. These bills were monetarily substantial and significantly affected surgical satisfaction. Although surgeons may be unable to limit the amount of bills patients receive postoperatively, increased communication and education regarding the perioperative billing process may prove to be beneficial for both patient satisfaction and the physician-patient relationship. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(2):123-127.].

Site of Ambulance Origination and Billing for Out-of-Network Services

Importance

The No Surprises Act implemented in 2022 aims to protect patients from surprise out-of-network (OON) bills, but it does not include ground ambulance services. Understanding ground ambulance OON and balance billing patterns from previous years could guide legislation aimed to protect patients following ground ambulance use.

Objective

To characterize OON billing from ground ambulance services by evaluating whether OON billing risk differs by the site of ambulance origination (home, hospital, nonhospital medical facility, or scene of incident).

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cross-sectional study of the Merative MarketScan dataset between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, using claims-based data from employer-based private health insurance plans in the US. Participants included patients who utilized ground ambulances during the study period. Data were analyzed from June to December 2023.

Exposure

Medical encounter requiring ground ambulance transportation.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Ground ambulance OON billing prevalence was calcuated. Linear probability models adjusted for state-level mixed effects were fit to evaluate OON billing probability across ambulance origins. Secondary outcomes included the allowed payment, patient cost-sharing amounts, and potential balance bills for OON ambulances.

Results

Among 2 031 937 ground ambulance services (1 375 977 unique patients) meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 1 072 791 (52.8%) rides transported men, and the mean (SD) patient age was 41 (18) years. Of all services, 1 113 676 (54.8%) were billed OON. OON billing probabilities for ambulances originating from home or scene were higher by 12.0 percentage points (PP) (95% CI, 11.8-12.2 PP; P < .001 for home; 95% CI, 11.7-12.2 PP; P < .001 for scene) vs those originating from hospitals. Mean (SD) total financial burden, including cost-sharing and potential balance bills per ambulance service, was $434.70 ($415.99) per service billed OON vs $132.21 ($244.92) per service billed in-network.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of over 2 million ground ambulance services, ambulances originating from home, the scene of an incident, and nonhospital medical facilities were more likely to result in OON bills. Legislation is needed to protect patients from surprise billing following use of ground ambulances, more than half of which resulted in OON billing. Future legislation should at minimum offer protections for these subsets of patients often calling for an ambulance in urgent or emergent situations.

Definition, Practice, Regulations, and Effects of Balance Billing: A Scoping Review

Background

Additional billing is commonly and legally practiced in some countries for patients covered by health insurance. However, knowledge and understanding of the additional billings are limited. This study reviews evidence on additional billing practices including definition, scope of practice, regulations and their effects on insured patients.

Methods

A systematic search of the full-text papers that provided the details of balance billing for health services, written in English, and published between 2000 and 2021 was carried out in Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science. Articles were screened independently by at least 2 reviewers for eligibility. Thematic analysis was applied.

Results

In total, 94 studies were selected for the final analysis. Most of the included articles (83%) reported findings from the United States (US). Numerous terms of additional billings were used across countries such as balance billing, surprise billing, extra billing, supplements and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending. The range of services incurred these additional bills also varied across countries, insurance plans, and healthcare facilities; the frequently reported were emergency services, surgeries, and specialist consultation. There were a few positive though more studies reported negative effects of the substantial additional bills which undermined universal health coverage (UHC) goals by causing financial hardship and reducing access to care. A range of government measures had been applied to mitigate these adverse effects, but some difficulties still exist.

Conclusion

Additional billings varied in terms of terminology, definitions, practices, profiles, regulations, and outcomes. There were a set of policy tools aimed to control substantial billing to insured patients despite some limitations and challenges. Governments should apply multiple policy measures to improve financial risk protection to the insured population.

Rapid Review of "No Surprise" Medical Billing in the United States: Stakeholder Perceptions and Challenges

Surprise medical bills received after care delivery in both emergency and non-emergency situations for out-of-network (OON) or other contractual health plan regulations adds additional stress upon the care guarantor, most often the patient. The passing and continued implementation of the federal No Surprises Act (NSA) and related state-level legislation continues to influence the processes of care delivery in the United States. This rapid review evaluated the literature specific to surprise medical billing in the United States since the passing of the No Surprise Act, guided by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocol. A total of 33 articles were reviewed by the research team and the results demonstrate industry stakeholder perceptions related to two primary industry themes (constructs) surrounding surprise billing: healthcare stakeholder perspectives and medical claim dispute (arbitration) processes. Further investigation identified sub-constructs for each: the practice of balance-billing patients for OON care and healthcare provider, and facility equitable reimbursement challenges (primary theme 1), and arbitration observations and challenges surrounding (a) the NSA medical dispute process, (b) state-level arbitration processes and perceptions, and (c) use of the Medicare fee schedule as a benchmark for arbitration decisions (primary theme 2). The results indicate the need for formative policy improvement initiatives to address the generation of surprise billing.

The Markup on Orthopaedic Services: An Analysis of 2014-2019 Medicare Data and the Potential for Surprise Billing

BACKGROUND

Markups on charges for medical services have the potential to result in "surprise billing," especially for out-of-network and uninsured patients. Although previously analyzed in other surgical subspecialties, the distribution and level of cost-to-charge ratios (CCRs) for orthopaedic services have yet to be studied. Therefore, our analysis sought to evaluate the CCRs for orthopaedic surgery services provided to Medicare beneficiaries throughout the United States.

METHODS

Orthopaedic services provided to Medicare Part B beneficiaries between 2014 and 2019 were identified in the Physician & Other Practitioners database of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). CCRs, representing the ratio between the actual payment provided by CMS and the charge submitted by the provider, were calculated for each service. Descriptive statistics were calculated for CCRs at the national, state, and service-code levels. The coefficient of variation (CoV) was utilized to evaluate variability in CCRs across services and states. Additionally, Mann-Kendall tests were performed to evaluate trends in CCRs for included services over the time frame.

RESULTS

Our analysis included an annual mean of 47,247,928 services provided by a mean of 23,185 orthopaedic surgeons over the study period. In the non-facility setting, there was a decrease in median CCRs for orthopaedic surgery services (0.29 to 0.27; p = 0.024). No changes were demonstrated for facility-based services. Service codes related to trigger finger procedures (0.18 to 0.17; p = 0.004), physical therapy (0.40 to 0.36; p = 0.035), and new patient visits (0.52 to 0.46; p = 0.035) demonstrated significant decreases in median CCRs. Only shoulder arthroscopy demonstrated a significant increase in median CCR (0.09 to 0.10; p = 0.003). High dispersion in CCRs was demonstrated for 16 (80%) of the 20 evaluated services. Wide variations in CCRs were demonstrated across individual states (median, 0.57; interquartile range width, 0.53).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis demonstrated low and variable CCRs for commonly performed orthopaedic services in the U.S. These findings serve to inform and help improve related price transparency policies. Additionally, our analysis encourages increased efforts at preventing these low CCRs from limiting care in vulnerable populations.

Surprise Out-of-Network Bills for Hand and Upper Extremity Trauma Patients

PURPOSE

Patients may receive surprise out-of-network bills even when they present to in-network facilities. Surprise bills are common following emergency care. We sought to characterize and determine risk factors for surprise billing in hand and upper extremity trauma patients in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We used IBM MarketScan data to evaluate hand and upper extremity trauma patients who received care in the ED from 2010 to 2017. Our primary outcome was the surprise billing incidence, defined as encounters in in-network EDs with out-of-network claims. We used descriptive and bivariate analyses to characterize surprise billing and used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate independent factors associated with surprise billing.

RESULTS

Of 710,974 ED encounters, 97,667 (14%) involved surprise billing. The incidence decreased from 26% in 2010 to 11% in 2017. Mean coinsurance payments were higher for surprise billing encounters and had double the growth from 2010 to 2017 compared to those without surprise billing. Receiving care from different provider types-especially therapists, radiologists, and pathologists, as well as hand surgeons-was associated with significantly higher odds of surprise billing. Transfer to another facility was not significantly associated with surprise billing.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the incidence of surprise billing decreased, more than 10% of patients treated in an ED for hand trauma remain at risk. Coinsurance for surprise billing encounters increased by twice as much as encounters without surprise billing. Patients requiring services from therapists, radiologists, pathologists, and hand surgeons were at greater risk for surprise bills. The federal No Surprises Act, passed in 2020, targets surprise billing and may help address some of these issues.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Many hand and upper extremity patients requiring ED care receive surprise bills from various sources that result in higher out-of-pocket costs.

The No Surprises Act: What Do Plastic Surgeons Need to Know?

Background:

Out-of-network, or “surprise” bills, have grown common in recent years and have raised substantial concern for patients. Congress recently enacted the No Surprises Act, effective on January 1, 2022, ending the majority of out-of-network bills for privately insured patients. The aim of this review is to briefly summarize the history of surprise billing, describe the regulations of the No Surprises Act, and examine the impact this legislation will have on the field of plastic surgery.

Methods:

A PubMed and Google Scholar literature search was conducted on out-of-network billing, or surprise bills, and the No Surprises Act. Media outlets, governmental agencies, and local and national medical organizations were additionally queried for surprise billing and the No Surprises Act.

Results:

Under the No Surprises Act, privately insured patients are protected from surprise medical bills in emergency and nonemergency settings, and uninsured or self-pay patients must be provided a good faith estimate of service fees before receiving nonemergent care. Plastic surgeons may consent patients to receive out-of-network bills if consent is obtained at least 72 hours before rendering a nonemergency service. Despite these patient protections, this act may influence plastic surgeons’ reimbursement rates and incentivize surgeons to alter their network status.

Conclusions:

The No Surprises Act provides significant protections for patients. However, it may have adverse effects for plastic surgeons. Plastic surgeons will only get paid in-network fees while providing care to patients unless consent is properly obtained in a nonemergent setting.

Individualized Out-of-Pocket Price Estimators for "Shoppable" Surgical Procedures: A Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study of US Hospitals

To estimate the nationwide prevalence of individualized out-of-pocket (OOP) price estimators at US hospitals, characterize patterns of inclusion of 14 specified "shoppable" surgical procedures, and determine hospital-level characteristics associated with estimators that include surgical procedures.

Background

Price transparency for shoppable surgical services is a key requirement of several recent federal policies, yet the extent to which hospitals provide online OOP price estimators remains unknown.

Methods

We reviewed a stratified random sample of 485 U.S. hospitals for the presence of a tool to allow patients to estimate individualized OOP expenses for healthcare services. We compared characteristics of hospitals that did and did not offer online price estimators and performed multivariable modeling to identify facility-level predictors of hospitals offering price estimator with and without surgical procedures.

Results

Nearly two-thirds (66.0%) of hospitals in the final sample (95% confidence interval 61.6%-70.1%) offered an online tool for estimating OOP healthcare expenses. Approximately 58.5% of hospitals included at least one shoppable surgical procedure while around 6.6% of hospitals included all 14 surgical procedures. The most common price reported was laparoscopic cholecystectomy (55.1%), and the least common was recurrent cataract removal (20.0%). Inclusion of surgical procedures varied by total annual surgical volume and health system membership. Only 26.9% of estimators explicitly included professional fees.

Conclusions

Our findings highlight an ongoing progress in price transparency, as well as key areas for improvement in future policies to help patients make more financially informed decisions about their surgical care.

Out-of-network bills among privately insured patients undergoing hysterectomy

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the issue of out-of-network billing for privately insured patients has been highlighted as a source of unexpected out-of-pocket charges for patients, even in the setting of an in-network primary surgeon. The Congress recently passed the No Surprises Act to curtail these practices. However, the new law contains exceptions, and its regulatory system has yet to be established. As one of the most frequently performed major surgical procedures, hysterectomy represents a significant exposure to out-of-network bills among nonelderly females in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the extent and nature of out-of-network bills at the time of hysterectomy among privately insured patients in the context of the recently passed No Surprises Act.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a retrospective cohort study of women aged 18 to 64 years who underwent simple hysterectomy from 2008 to 2018 with an in-network primary surgeon in the IBM Watson Marketscan claims database, which includes data from over 350 different payers. We identified out-of-network claims for facility or professional services and analyzed the frequency, size, and source of the payments. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess for patient, procedure, and facility characteristics associated with the risk of out-of-network claims.

RESULTS

We identified 585,223 hysterectomy cases meeting all the inclusion criteria, and they were evenly split between inpatient (49.6%) and outpatient (50.4%) procedures. Overall, 8.8% of cases included at least 1 out-of-network claim, with median out-of-network expenditures of $553 for inpatient procedures and $438 for outpatient procedures. Compared with professional out-of-network claims, facility out-of-network claims were less common (2.3% vs 7.4%) but far greater in the amount billed (median $8,307 vs $400 inpatient, $3,281 vs $407 outpatient). Among the professional claims, those from midlevel surgical assistants were most frequently out-of-network when present (13.8% inpatient; 20.0% outpatient), whereas out-of-network claims from anesthesia were most common overall and largest (median $890 inpatient, $1,021 outpatient) when present. In a multivariable model, older age, increasing comorbidity, and complications during the stay were associated with higher odds of any out-of-network claim. In contrast, the risk of facility out-of-network claims was more strongly associated with the facility region and the surgical approach, with the highest odds for cases in the North Central region and those using robotic approach.

CONCLUSION

Out-of-network bills for privately insured patients at the time of hysterectomy occurred in 8.8% of cases. Approximately one-quarter of these included out-of-network facility claims tended to have higher payments than out-of-network professional claims and may not be prevented by the No Surprises Act. Gynecologic surgeons should be aware of the potential out-of-network charges for ancillary services at the time of surgery, particularly the network status of the facility, to provide maximal transparency and financial protection to our patients.