Two of the largest lobbying groups representing doctors and hospitals filed a lawsuit Thursday challenging the Biden administration’s decision on how to implement a law that protects patients from most bills. medical surprise.
The litigation from the American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association did not seek to prevent the law from taking effect in January. Instead, it seeks a change in a key provision in the regulations issued in September.
At issue is how the arbitrators will decide how much insurance companies pay for disputed out-of-network bills.
That was the main point of contention in the long and contentious debate that led to the passage of the No Surprises Act in late 2020 — and still so a year later.
“Our legal challenge urges regulators to ensure there is a fair and meaningful process for resolving disputes between healthcare providers and insurers.” AMA President Gerald E. Harmon said in a written statement.
Two other people litigation – one from the Texas Medical Association and the other from the Aviation Medical Services Association – has been submitted as required.
“There has been a lot of political pressure, and now they are turning to the courts to get results,” said Katie Keith, Director of Health Policy and Law Initiative at the Georgetown University Law Center. that they want to see.
The administration has defended its interpretation of the law, with Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra told KHN and NPR last month that if the arbitration process is “extensive” then costs will increase, so it establishes a system that “provides guidelines to help us operate efficiently, transparently and cost-effectively”.
The No Surprise Act is designed to address a common practice: providers send large, unexpected bills to patients who receive out-of-network care from doctors, labs, patients hospital or air ambulance service.
Starting in January, the law prohibits most such balance bills. Instead, insured patients will only pay what they would get if the care was provided by a network facility or doctor. It directs insurance companies and medical providers to find out if there is any more owed.
If they cannot agree, the dispute turns to “baseball-style” arbitration, in which both parties make their best offer and the arbitrator chooses one, with the loser paying the arbitration costs, which rules set for next year. $200 and $500.
The regulations issued on September 30 direct the arbitrators in favor of choosing the amount closest to the negotiated average in-network rate for the type of care involved, although they may also consider other factors, such as experience provider, type of hospital, and complexity of treatment.
Congress wrote into the law that arbitrators could not look at “billed charges”, often highly inflated amounts that hospitals and doctors set to do what they wanted to be paid, nor as they cannot consider the lowest payment amount, including reimbursement rates from Medicaid and Medicare.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that the weighting of in-network averages “puts a heavy weight” on healthcare providers and “mostly unlike” the process that Congress created.
Conference, it alleges, which stipulates “no specific weight or presumption for any factor,” instead directing arbitrators to consider all factors. Focusing on average on-net prices would “prevent fair and equitable compensation.”
The regulation focuses on the average rate while allowing other factors to be cited by policy experts as an attempt to avoid the inflationary effects seen. in some places where the state’s balance is paid The law allowed arbitrators to consider giving an inflated percentage of the fees billed.
They also note that it is a purpose of the law to help reduce high out-of-network costs.
“Loren Adler, deputy director of the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Health Policy Initiative, said:
Some doctors, he said, will see reduced payments. However, he noted, “those below average, that is, half, will see increased leverage.”
He and Keith also said that the focus on the on-net exchange rate in the regulation was not unexpected.
Keith, in an article for Health Affairs about two other lawsuits against regulation, noted that Congressional Budget Office estimates of the law’s effect on premiums (savings of 0.5% to 1% in most years) “depend on the assumption” that the amount settled in disputes will “generally be match” to the average rate in the network.
Joining the AMA and AHA in the lawsuit are plaintiffs Renown Health, UMass Memorial Health, and two doctors in North Carolina.