(1/17)

Today’s surprise billing fix is a huge win for consumers!

As of 1/1/2022, it will be illegal nationwide for an out-of-network provider to surprise bill a patient for more than their standard in-network cost-sharing obligations.

THREAD based on the final language
(2/17)

The protections from surprise billing will apply in all emergency situations (w/ lone exception of ground ambulance rides) & for non-emergency out-of-network physician services received at in-network facilities.

Helpful rundown of the protections: healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hbl…
(3/17)

These are arguably broader than the protections in any state law and will be difficult to game.

Patients can now feel safe they won't get a surprise bill from the emergency room or from an anesthesiologist or assistant surgeon involved in their elective surgery.
(4/17)

With surprise billing eliminated, so to disappears the leverage exploited by several large provider groups to extract higher payment rates that meant we all paid higher premiums.

theconversation.com/surprise-medic…
(5/17)

An ideal solution might have just left things there (see brookings.edu/blog/usc-brook…), but the legislation also includes a new price support to be determined through an arbitration process.

However, some key guardrails should really limit the potential inflationary effects.
(6/17)

1. Like previous iterations of fed'l surprise billing legislation, arbiters are told to base decisions mainly on median in-network rates as of 2019, inflated forward.

2. Public reporting of outcomes limits the potential for provider groups to capture the process.
(7/17)

3. Providers have to wait 90 days between filing arbitration claims, making it near-impossible to rely solely on arbitration for out-of-network revenue.

4. Arbiters are prohibited from considering unilaterally-set provider charges (brookings.edu/blog/usc-brook…)
(8/17)

With those guardrails in place, it's possible the final legislation actually ends up being more consumer-friendly than prior iterations.
(9/17)

Biggest risk is that arbiters give weight to previously contracted rates buoyed by surprise billing leverage (one factor in their guidance), but I'm skeptical this receives much weight. Moreover, the guardrails should limit inflationary effects even from generous awards.
(10/17)

I don’t think the addition of prohibiting consideration of Medicare/Medicaid rates should have much of an effect one way or the other (the arbiter was never going to consider those rates anyway in making determinations).

(11/17)

And providers can feel secure that payment rates will only go down if current rates were buoyed upward by leverage associated with the ability to surprise bill (& commensurately so).

Facilities still need EM docs & anesthesiologists, and vice versa.
(12/17)

While the bill doesn't supersede state laws regulating fully-insured plan enrollees (~half the mrkt), it seems ridiculous for states to maintain a separate arbitration process (& providers generally don't even know if a patient is in a fully- or self-insured plan).
(13/17)

The federal law also offers an easy opportunity for states with less consumer-friendly laws like NY & NJ to help their residents by glomming onto the federal approach.

brookings.edu/blog/usc-brook…
(14/17)

Rulemaking on calculating median in-network rates is due 7/1/21, so attention will turn now to implementation. This will be toughest for air ambulances, where only 20% of rides are in-network today.

milbank.org/quarterly/arti…
(15/17)

And it’s unfortunate that ground ambulances were left out of the fix. There’s no particular reason for this omission, so hopefully lawmakers will continue working on a solution here (and we’ll have a lot more on the topic next year).
(16/17)

At the end of the day, today's legislation puts an end to a market failure that was being exploited by private equity & some other large groups in a manner that should reduce health care costs overall.

That’s a clear win in my book.
(17/17)

And selfishly I'm excited never to have to worry about a surprise bill again when I go to the hospital.

• • •

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

16 Dec
27 Senators sign a bipartisan letter supporting inclusion of the recently-announced surprise billing agreement in the year-end spending legislation: cassidy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…
Unfortunately, the AMA is opposing the bipartisan surprise billing legislation.

Interestingly, they previously seemed to support the Neal/Brady bill (left), and the new bill is identical other than a couple concessions to provider lobbying.

searchlf.ama-assn.org/letter/documen…
The way this is written, you’d think AMA and other provider groups weren’t the ones pushing arbitration (and the administrative headache that goes along with it) this whole time.
Read 4 tweets
12 Dec
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.
Read 16 tweets
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!