Insurance industry claims new federal price transparency regulations cost each payer as much as $13.6 million in set up and maintenance costs
Price transparency in hospital, clinical laboratory, and other service provider costs marches ever closer to reality for America’s healthcare consumers. Meanwhile, some insurers and hospital groups are working to block implementation of federal rules they argue will confuse consumers and potentially lead to higher costs.
The pushback from hospital and payer lobbies centers on a pair of new federal rules that build on directives in President Trump’s 2017 Executive Order Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition (13813) and that direct federal agencies to modify their implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The first is a Proposed Rule, titled, “Transparency in Coverage Proposed Rule” (CMS-9915-P) that would require payers to make public on their websites negotiated rates for in-network providers and allowed amounts paid for out-of-network providers. Insurers also would be required to make an online “tool” available to members that would provide consumers with out-of-pocket cost estimates for “all covered healthcare items and services.” The 60-day public comment period for this rule went into effect November 15, 2019.
The second is a Final Rule which goes into effect on Jan.1, 2021, titled, “Medicare and Medicaid Programs: CY 2020 Hospital Outpatient PPS Policy Changes and Payment Rates and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System Policy Changes and Payment Rates. Price Transparency Requirements for Hospitals to Make Standard Charges Public” (CMS-1717-F2). The rule requires hospitals to disclose online not only their chargemaster prices but also prices negotiated with payers for 300 “shoppable” healthcare services.
These shoppable services include:
Medical Laboratory and Pathology Services
- Basic metabolic panel
- Blood test, comprehensive group of blood chemicals
- Obstetric blood test panel
- Blood test, lipids (cholesterol and triglycerides)
- Kidney function panel test
- Liver function blood test panel
- Manual urinalysis test with examination using microscope
- Automated urinalysis test
- PSA (prostate-specific antigen)
- Blood test, thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH)
- Complete blood cell count, with differential white blood cells, automated
- Complete blood count, automated
- Blood test, clotting time
- Coagulation assessment blood test
Medical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups may want to closely monitor ongoing efforts by payers and hospital groups to block these rules, since any changes will extend to their services, as well as extend price transparency to most employer-based group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group and individual coverage.
Will Transparency Lead to Higher Healthcare Costs?
In its story on insurer claims, FierceHealthcare reported that the rule would require payers to disclose a “staggering” amount of data, leading to implementation costs 26 times more than the Trump administration’s $510,000 estimate. To comply with the federal rule, an insurer will spend as much as $13.63 million on setup and maintenance. That prediction is based on an economic analysis from economic consulting firm Bates White, which conducted the survey on behalf of The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA).
“Some plans have indicated they would be forced to run two sets of tools—one designed to meet member shopping needs and another implemented only to meet the requirements of the proposed rule,” the BCBSA told FierceHealthcare.
Meanwhile, the Association for Community Affiliated Plans (ACAP) argued in a letter to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Seema Verma that cost-sharing liability estimates—which are not a price quote for care—could “lead to consumer confusion and frustration.” The ACAP also asserts the transparency plan could inadvertently lead to higher healthcare cost increases.
“In the absence of quality data, consumers may determine that high cost equates to higher value, select the higher-cost providers, and ultimately drive up medical expenses, especially in circumstances where the consumer’s out-of-pocket costs have been met,” wrote ACAP Chief Executive Officer Margaret A. Murray.
The Alliance of Community Health Plans (ACHP) echoed those views in its own statement, claiming the Trump plan will burden consumers and drive up costs.
“We have long supported efforts to make quality and pricing information more accessible, understandable, and actionable for consumers,” the ACHP wrote. “But they need real-time, patient-specific information tied to individual coverage benefits, not a massive published list of prices that may only frustrate consumers and likely increase costs over time.”
Hospital Associations and Healthcare Systems Bring Lawsuit Against HHS
In December 2019, several hospital associations and healthcare groups filed a lawsuit to block next year’s implementation of the hospital price transparency rule. The plaintiffs included the:
- American Hospital Association (AHA)
- Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)
- Children’s Hospital Association (CHA)
- Federation of American Hospitals (FAH)
- Memorial Community Hospital and Health System
- Providence Health System – Southern California
- Bothwell Regional Health Center
These healthcare organizations and providers joined together to argue that HHS lacks the statutory authority to require and enforce public disclosure of individually negotiated rates between commercial health insurers and hospitals. They also say consumers are likely to be confused by the information they receive.
In its legal response, HHS contends that hospitals are adding to consumers’ confusion by failing to provide transparency.
“They do not dispute that consumers are casting about for accurate information about prices in a complex healthcare system, yet they rely on that same complexity as an affirmative reason to deprive patients of pricing information they need to figure out their out-of-pocket expenses,” HHS said in its brief.
DePaul University Professor Anthony LoSasso, PhD, who specializes in healthcare economics, admits to being “on the fence” regarding the pros and cons of transparency plans.
“I want to think that people can benefit from price transparency. But for a variety of reasons, people don’t look at pricing info even when it’s available,” LoSasso told WTTW News in Chicago.
Nevertheless, HHS vows to continue its push for price transparency.
“Hospitals should be ashamed that they aren’t willing to provide American patients the cost of a service before they purchase it,” HHS Deputy Assistant Secretary and National Spokesperson Caitlin Oakley told Reuters in a response to the hospital groups’ lawsuit.
In light of the government’s push to make healthcare pricing more transparent, clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology leaders in hospitals and health systems would be wise to prepare for a future that includes price shopping by consumers.
—Andrea Downing Peck
Related Information:
Transparency in Coverage Proposed Rule (CMS-9915-P)
Insurers: Price Transparency Rule Puts ‘Staggering,’ Expensive Burden on US
Lawsuit vs Alex M. Azar II, in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services
The Pros and Cons of New Health Care Price Transparency Rule
Hospital Groups File Lawsuit to Block Trump’s Price Transparency Rule
