THREAD

Today's bipartisan, bicameral surprise billing legislation isn't perfect, but it's a clear improvement over the status quo

Leg text: energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrat…

Section-by-section: energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrat…
Surprise billing would be prohibited for all OON emergency services (& post-stabilization), much OON care at in-network facilities, & air ambulances.

Out-of-network payment can be challenged to an arbitration process that's instructed to mainly consider median in-network rates.
Arbitration can be a bit clunky & opaque (& adds administrative cases), but the legislation does a pretty good job placing guardrails on the process to prevent abuses.

1) There's a strong anchor to median contracted rates

2) It prohibits consideration of billed charges

cont.
3) The legislation incorporates provisions that make it difficult for a large provider group to rely exclusively on arbitration to generate high payments.

4) There will be ample public reporting if the process became inflationary.
The biggest weakness of the arbitration process is that it's instructed to consider previously contracted rates between the two parties, which helps the groups who previously leveraged surprise billing to get high contracted rates.
This is far from ideal & could accrue to the benefit of the large PE-owned groups who really leaned in to surprise billing leverage, but this is but one factor & I think it's clear that median in-network rates are to be viewed as more important in making determinations.
Arbitrators are also oddly told to consider the market shares of the insurer and provider group, which at first reads like a perverse incentive to consolidate. But I'm told the intent is actually to penalize high market-share actors (this should probably be made more clear).
Importantly, the balance billing bans themselves are well-crafted (in my opinion) to limit gaming -- for instance by not leaving open any notice & consent loopholes for services where a patient would never voluntarily choose an OON provider at an in-network facility.
All in all, this takes consumers out of the middle of surprise billing disputes, almost certainly at least won't increase costs, and I'd argue should allow the market to improve over time.

That's a win in my book, even if it's not my ideal solution.
In addition to the standard protections, the bill also bans surprise bills from air ambulances, where we found that 40% of patients were at risk of an average $20K surprise bill:
milbank.org/quarterly/arti…

& where the industry has become dominated by PE

brookings.edu/blog/usc-brook…
The legislation also includes grants to states to set up APCDs that would come with standardization of how the data would be reported/collected.

More on the value of this (& regulatory options) from @clinkeyoung & @MattAFiedler: brookings.edu/research/feder…
It sounds like all the relevant actors other than McConnell are on board with this surprise billing deal, so that's the key remaining piece here.

Pelosi, Schumer, and Trump have all made approving statements.
For states, this wouldn't supersede existing surprise billing laws for the fully-insured population, but it's also a bit cumbersome for a state to maintain a separate surprise billing remedy (& the regulations that go along with that).
If this bill passes, it also creates an easy opportunity for states with more inflationary existing laws like NY, NJ, TX, & CT to adopt the federal protection for all their fully-insured residents.
Just think about the complexity otherwise, where a provider would have to know whether the patient is in a fully- or self-insured plan before initiating arbitration, w/ diff cases going to diff arbitration systems with different rules.

Sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare.
And that's all I have (for now).

Excited to see an agreement coming together here. A federal solution offers so many benefits over the amalgam of state protections, even again if it's not perfect & required a couple more giveaways to provider groups (beyond the Neal/Brady bill).

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Loren Adler

Loren Adler Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @LorenAdler

11 Dec
While the debate has largely broken down as benchmark vs. arbitration, much more important is how generous the out-of-network payment mandate ends up being.

E.g., arbitration based on Medicare rates would be more consumer-friendly than a benchmark based on charges.
Or to take concrete state examples, CT's surprise billing law that uses an OON benchmark payment mandate at the 80th percentile of charges for emergency services is just as bad for consumers as NY's that relies on arbitration to get to the same end state.

brookings.edu/blog/usc-brook…
Or in a more consumer-friendly fashion, NH's law that strongly anchors their arbitration process to median in-network rates ends up pretty similar to CA or OR laws that get to a similar place through a benchmark.
Read 10 tweets
24 Jul
1/

Quick thread re: @gottliebecon’s paper presentation that sparked some debate last night (and @Jabaluck’s livetweeting thread)

conference.nber.org/conf_papers/f1…

2/

First, the paper itself provides some great new descriptive work on physician salaries that should prove valuable for future research, but I don’t think it tells us much about the normative question of whether doctor pay is too high/too low.

3/

The comparison to lawyer salaries is interesting, but again there are a # of potential explanations beyond # of hours (in both directions).

On one hand:
- More night/weekend hours
- Probably higher stress
- More backloaded nature of the rewards, even beyond just pay
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!