ICHRAs allow companies to compensate employees for insurance purchased in individual markets and may help clinical laboratories reduce patient bad debt
Both employees and their employers are frustrated with current options for health coverage. Now, a recent report from the HRA Council suggests that more employers are turning to Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRA) as an alternative to traditional group insurance coverage to cope with the increasing cost of employee health benefits. This will be of interest to clinical laboratories that must collect copays/deductibles from patients. Health insurance arrangements that make it easier for patients to pay help labs reduce patient bad debt.
According to its website, HRA Council is “dedicated to improving and expanding health coverage options for millions of workers by giving employers better ways to offer workers health insurance.”
The non-partisan advocacy organization, which consists of insurers, brokers, employers, and other stakeholders, estimates that only 500,000 workers are currently covered by these plans nationwide. That number of workers represents a 29% increase since 2023, with most of the growth coming from large employers.
Under HRA arrangements, employers provide non-taxed financial assistance to workers who then obtain coverage for themselves and/or their families in the insurance marketplace.
One type of plan, known as the Qualified Small Employer HRA (QSEHRA), was established as part of the 21st Century Cures Act, which Congress passed in 2016. QSEHRAs, however, are available only to businesses with 50 or fewer full-time (or equivalent) employees. Most of the recent growth has come from Individual Coverage HRAs (ICHRA), established under regulations issued by the Trump Administration in 2019.
In contrast to QSEHRAs, ICHRA plans are available to companies of any size, HRA Council notes.
“It’s a way to offer coverage to more diverse employee groups than ever before and set a budget that controls costs for the companies,” HRA Council Executive Director Robin Paoli told KFF Health News.
“ICHRAs are bringing a fresh new approach for employers who need a new or different solution to enable providing health benefits to their employees,” said Andrew Reeves (above), senior vice president and general manager, Gravie ICHRA, in the HRA Council report. Gravie is one of the health benefits companies allied with HRA Council. “Through the defined contribution approach that ICHRA brings, employers are now able to set their budget and enable employees to make their own individual decisions on the coverage they need for themselves and their families. ICHRAs are delivering an approach to employee benefits that is both stable yet at the same time flexible for the individual,” he added. These types of alternatives to traditional employer-sponsored health plans may also help clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups reduce patient bad debt. (Photo copyright: LinkedIn.)
How ICHRA Plans Work
As explained by HRA Council, “an ICHRA allows the employer to allocate to each employee a specific amount of money to spend on ACA [Affordable Care Act]-compliant individual health insurance plans. Employees then purchase their own plans, and the employer reimburses them up to the allocated amount.”
The rule allows employers to define up to 11 classes of workers and offer different benefit packages to each. These benefits can be based on characteristics such as:
geography,
whether the worker is employed full-time, part-time, or seasonally,
whether the worker is paid a salary or hourly wage, and
Employers can choose to offer ICHRAs to some classes and traditional group plans to others. Within each class of employee, employers also can vary compensation based on age—up to a 3-to-1 ratio—since older workers will generally pay higher premiums than younger ones.
For example, the HRA Council explains, “if an employer offers its 26-year-old employee $300 per month, it could only offer the oldest employee up to $900 per month.”
However, some consumer advocates have pointed to potential downsides of these plans, KFF Health News reported.
The rule, they concede, provides guardrails to prevent companies from moving only their sicker employees—the ones most costly to cover—to the individual market. For example, employers must offer the HRAs to entire classes of workers, and the rule prevents them from defining classes that contain only a small number of employees.
However, the authors contend that employers can still target HRAs to classes more likely to be sick while offering group coverage to other classes. In general, they argue, employers with sicker workforces will be most attracted to HRAs. As these workers enter individual insurance markets premiums could rise, particularly “in states that today have individual markets with a relatively low-cost mix of enrollees,” the authors wrote.
Although the rule allows companies to vary compensation based on age, older workers will still pay more for insurance unless the contribution covers the entire cost of the premium. This would likely make the HRAs “less attractive to employers by making it harder for employers to avoid leaving some workers worse off,” the authors noted.
The Brookings authors also observed that workers who accept the contributions are ineligible for premium tax credits enabled by the Affordable Care Act.
KFF Health News noted other potential downsides as well. “Plans sold on the individual market often have smaller provider networks and higher deductibles than employer-sponsored coverage. Premiums are often higher than for comparable group coverage.”
In addition, ICHRAs can create administrative headaches that have prompted some employers to return to group plans. “Instead of a company paying one group health plan premium, dozens of individual health insurers may need to be paid,” KFF Health News reported. “And employees who’ve never shopped for a plan before need help figuring out what coverage works for them and signing up.”
One Employer’s Example
KFF Health News highlighted one organization that appears to be happy with its newly adopted ICHRA: Lycoming College in Williamsport, Penn. The school, which provides health benefits for 400 faculty, staff, and family members, saved $1.4 million in healthcare costs in the first year after implementing the plan. “Employees saved an average of $1,200 each in premiums,” KFF noted.
Prior to the transition, one employee with a family of five paid $411 per month for a plan that had a $5,600 annual deductible. Under the ICHRA, he pays $790 per month with no deductible.
“It’s nice to have the choice to balance the high deductible versus the higher premium,” he told KFF Health News. Before, “it was tough to budget for that deductible.”
Which is where the benefit to clinical laboratories comes back in. Making it easier and affordable for patients to pay their co-pays and deductibles also means more patients showing up at labs for doctor ordered tests and blood draws.
Study findings highlight financial impact underinsured have on healthcare providers, including clinical laboratories and pathology groups
Commonwealth Fund’s 2024 Biennial Health Survey released in November shows that not only are Americans underinsured, but many are swimming in medical debt. This is not good news for clinical laboratories. Simply put, labs must collect deductibles, copays, and out of pocket amounts from insured patients. If the patient is underinsured, that means the lab probably has to collect more—even 100%—of total charges directly from the patient.
The study conducted between March and June of 2024 collected data from 8,201 respondents ages 18-64, and despite two of every three respondents carrying health insurance through their employers, one of every four is underinsured, according to a Commonwealth Fund news release.
A further 44% of respondents have medical debt, with one of every four calling their out-of-pocket payments “nearly unaffordable,” the news release notes. Additionally, one out of five had a gap in coverage during the year.
“Congress, employers, insurers, and healthcare providers all play a role in lowering costs and making care more affordable, so families can avoid debt and get the care they need to stay healthy,” said Sara R. Collins, PhD, lead study author and Commonwealth Fund Senior Scholar and Vice President for Health Care Coverage and Access and Tracking Health System Performance, in the news release.
Astute laboratory managers will look beyond the study’s face value and consider the profound impact such findings could have on their own labs.
“While having health insurance is always better than not having it, the findings challenge the implicit assumption that health insurance in the United States buys affordable access to care,” the Commonwealth Fund said of its 2023 study. This sentiment rings true in the Funds’ latest findings as well.
“The Affordable Care Act has covered 23 million people and cut the uninsured rate in half. But high costs are a serious problem for many Americans, regardless of the kind of insurance they have,” said Sara R. Collins, PhD (above), lead study author and Commonwealth Fund Senior Scholar and Vice President for Health Care Coverage and Access and Tracking Health System Performance, in a news release. Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups are greatly affected by underinsured patients. (Photo copyright: Commonwealth Fund.)
Labs Often Must Collect Payments Upfront
Many patients are in high deductible health plans and may forgo or delay ordered lab tests. Labs collect patient deductibles, copays, and out-of-pocket expenses directly from patients. However, underinsured patients may be required to pay for 100% of the services they receive, requiring the lab to collect these payments upfront.
Underinsured patients already facing a mountain of debt may struggle to pay for lab services. The debt many owe is substantial. “Nearly half (48%) of all adults with medical debt owe $2,000 or more; one of five (21%) carry a staggering $5,000 or more in debt,” Commonwealth Fund noted in its study.
Thus, collecting money owed is proving to be a problem for healthcare providers. Patient collection rates are plummeting to 48%, with “providers writing off more bad debt from patients with insurance,” TechTarget reported.
“Lower patient collection rates left providers facing bad debt. The analysis showed that 1.54% was the bad debt write-offs as a percentage of total claim charges in 2023. Researchers note that the percentage may be small, but the total cash amount equated to over $17.4 billion last year,” TechTarget added.
Having some rather than no insurance is not the safety net for patients previously thought. When it comes to the insured, their debt “accounts for 53% of the estimated $17.4 billion that hospitals, health systems, and medical practices wrote off as bad debts in 2023,” Business Wire noted, citing data from Kodiak Solutions’ quarterly revenue cycle benchmarking report.
Delaying Critical Lab Tests
The challenges the insured face with debt impacts labs in the long run. A staggering 57% of survey respondents reported passing on needed care because they could not afford it, and of those, 41% said their health concerns worsened when they denied themselves that care, Commonwealth Fund noted.
Increasingly poor health means patients might struggle to collect sufficient income to pay for their now added expenses, further causing them to struggle to pay for anything insurance might not cover, such as doctor ordered lab tests.
The affect this has on hospitals and medical laboratories casts light on the healthcare marketplace as a whole. It’s a trend that needs to be further studied.
“Most hospital bad debt is associated with insured patients, and nearly one in three hospitals report over $10M in bad debt,” are two of the top five financial healthcare statistics reported by Definitive Healthcare in a 2023 report.
“Expanding patient collection strategies may be key to maximizing revenue and avoiding losses,” TechTarget suggested.
Possible Solutions
The Commonwealth Fund study made clear that employer-covered healthcare does not guarantee affordable care or that ample care will be provided. Possible solutions from the study called on policymakers to “expand coverage and lower costs for consumers.” It added that “extending enhanced premium tax credits and strengthening protections against medical debt could make coverage more protective and affordable.”
Until a solution can be found, it’s wise to stay abreast of this trend and how it can impact the bottom line of clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups nationwide.
Though the cost of clinical laboratory testing is not highlighted in KFF’s annual survey, it is a component in how much employers pay for healthcare plans for their employees
Employers now pay higher health insurance premiums than ever for family coverage. However, because of the current tight labor market, they are generally absorbing much of that increase rather than passing the higher costs on to their workers. That’s one key takeaway from KFF’s 26th annual Employer Health Benefits Survey, which the non-profit published on Oct. 9, 2024. While the report does not comment specifically about the cost of clinical laboratory testing or genetic testing and how they may contribute to rising insurance costs, it stands to reason they are part of growing healthcare costs for corporate health benefits.
The KFF survey found that premiums for family coverage increased 7% in 2024, reaching an average of $25,572. That follows a 7% increase in 2023. “Over the past five years—a period of high inflation (23%) and wage growth (28%)—the cumulative increase in premiums has been similar (24%),” KFF stated in a press release.
However, the amount paid by workers has gone up by less than $300 since 2019. It now stands at an average of $6,296, a total increase of 5% over five years. On average, workers covered 25% of family premium costs in 2024, down from 29% in 2023. Workers with single coverage paid an average of $1,368—16% of the annual premium cost—compared with 17% in 2023.
“Employers are shelling out the equivalent of buying an economy car for every worker every year to pay for family coverage,” KFF President and CEO Drew Altman, PhD (above), said in a press release. “In the tight labor market in recent years, they have not been able to continue offloading costs onto workers who are already struggling with healthcare bills.” Rising costs of clinical laboratory testing is always part of the mix contributing to increased worker insurance premiums for employers. (Photo copyright: KFF.)
HDHP/SO plans, as defined by KFF, “have a deductible of at least $1,000 for single coverage and $2,000 for family coverage and are offered with an HRA [Health Reimbursement Arrangement] or are HSA [health savings account]-qualified.” Point-of-service plans “have lower cost sharing for in-network provider services and do not require a primary care gatekeeper to screen for specialist and hospital visits,” the report states.
Cost Sharing via Deductibles
Average deductible amounts—which KFF identified as another form of cost-sharing—varied depending on the type of plan, employer size, and whether the worker had family or single coverage.
For workers with single coverage, average deductibles across all plan types rose from $1,655 in 2019 to $1,787 in 2024, a total five-year increase of about 8%. The average in 2023 was $1,735. These numbers were for in-network providers.
The report noted that some family plans calculate deductibles using an aggregate structure, “in which all family members’ out-of-pocket expenses count toward the deductible,” whereas others use a separate per-person structure. The report includes breakdowns of average deductibles across all types.
Who Offers the Best Benefits?
In general, the KFF report found that large companies—defined as those with 200 or more workers—tend to offer more generous health benefits than smaller ones. Virtually all large companies (98%) offered health benefits, while slightly more than half of small companies (53%) do so.
Among companies that do offer health benefits, the average deductible at a small firm was $2,575 compared to $1,538 at large firms. Among workers with family coverage, the average contribution toward overall premium costs was $7,947 (33%) at small firms compared to $5,697 (23%) at large firms. Among workers with single coverage, the numbers were $1,429 (16%) at small firms compared to $1,204 (14%) at large firms.
The report also found variations in overall premiums and health benefits across nine different industries. For example, healthcare firms paid the highest premiums for family coverage—an average of $26,864—followed by transportation/communications/utilities at $26,601. Companies in agriculture, mining, and construction paid the lowest premiums, an average of $22,654.
There were wide variations by industry in terms of how many firms offer any health benefits. Among state and local government entities, 83% offered health benefits, followed by transportation/communications/utilities (69%), manufacturing (65%), wholesale (62%), healthcare (58%), and finance (56%). Just 40% of retail businesses and 49% of agriculture/mining/construction businesses offered health benefits.
Health Screening Coverage
The KFF report did not include data about insurance coverage for clinical laboratory services. However, one section did address employer willingness to provide opportunities for health screening.
Among large businesses, 56% offered health risk assessments, in which individuals answer questions about their medical history, lifestyle, and other areas relevant to their health risks. A smaller number (44%) offer biometric screening, which “could include meeting a target body mass index (BMI) or cholesterol level, but not goals related to smoking,” the report said. Only 9% of small businesses offered biometric screening, the report found.
KFF conducted its survey between January and July 2024 among a random selection of public and private employers with at least three workers. The survey excluded federal government entities but included state and local government. A total of 2,142 employers responded.
Inflation during this current administration definitely hit consumers in the health insurance premium pocketbook. At the same time providers raised their own prices making it more expensive for people with HDHPs to come up with the cash required by their annual deductible. While clinical laboratory and genetic testing are not highlighted in KFF’s survey, they certainly play a role in increasing costs to healthcare consumers and are worth considering.
Request for money upfront comes at a time when many patients already struggle with medical debt
In its reporting of healthcare trends gathering momentum, a national newspaper caused quite a stir this spring when it published a story documenting how some hospitals now require patients to pay in advance of specified surgeries and procedures. Hospitals are recognizing what clinical laboratories have long known—a larger proportion of Americans do not have the cash to pay a medical bill.
Hospitals and surgery centers are requesting advanced payment for elective procedures such as knee replacements, CT scans, and childbirth procedures, according to an Advisory Board daily briefing.
“In some cases, they may also have a contract with an insurance company. And in that contract are terms that stipulate hospitals need to collect deductibles or co-insurance before a procedure,” Evans added.
According to Bankrate’s 2024 Annual Emergency Savings Report, nearly half of all American’s would be unable to pay cash for an unplanned $1,000 bill. Therefore, one wonders why hospitals would attempt to extract payments from patients in advance of medical visits and clinical laboratory testing. Wouldn’t that just reduce the number of patients electing to undergo needed surgeries and other costly procedures? Nevertheless, it appears that many hospitals struggling financially are doing just that, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Genetic testing laboratories have a similar problem because of high-deductible health plans ($5K/year for individual, $12K/year for family). It means that many patients, even with insurance, struggle to pay a $1,000 to $5,000 bill for a genetic test.
Requesting payment from patients before healthcare visits is not new. However, the practice is on the rise and comes at a time when consumers are already struggling to make ends meet.
“Hospitals collected (in Q1 2024) about 23% of what patients owed them before they set foot in a hospital or doctor’s office. That’s up from about 20% in the same period a year earlier,” said reporter Melanie Evans (above) of The Wall Street Journal, referring to data from 1,850 hospitals analyzed by Kodiak Solutions. Genetic testing laboratories experience similar challenges getting paid due to many people struggling with high deductible health plans. (Photo copyright: LinkedIn.)
Price Transparency Behind Upfront Payments
According to a recent KFF survey of US families, “about half of adults would be unable to pay an unexpected medical bill of $500 in full without going into debt.”
Regardless, asking for payment for nonemergency care has become more common as people increasingly choose health plans with high-deductibles and amid the push for greater price transparency, according to Richard Gundling, Senior Vice President, Content and Professional Practice Guidance at Healthcare Financial Management Association (HFMA), in an interview with Advisory Board.
“It’s very common if not the norm” for hospitals to give patients a cost estimate and ask for advance payment, Gundling stated during the interview.
In fact, healthcare providers and insurers are required to shared charges and estimates as part of newly implemented federal rules. According to the American Hospital Association (AHA) those statutes and rules include:
The Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule (effective January 2021) which requires hospitals to publicly post “standard charges” via machine readable files.
The No Surprises Act which mandates the sharing of “good faith estimates” with uninsured/self-pay patients for most scheduled services and also requires insurers to provide explanation of benefits to enrollees.
According to Consumer Reports, hospitals are finding consumers less reliable payers than insurance companies. “No one would say, ‘Pay up or we won’t treat you.’ But we’re saying that, ‘You have a large out-of-pocket cost, and we want to know how are you going to pay for it,’” explained Jonathan Wiik, Vice President of Health Insights at FinThrive, a revenue cycle management company.
Razor Thin Hospital Margins
For their part, hospitals, health systems, and medical practices wrote off $17.4 billion in bad debt in 2023, Kodiak Solutions, an Indianapolis-based healthcare consulting and software company, reported in a news release.
“With the amounts that health plans require patients to pay continuing to grow, provider organizations need a strategy to avoid intensifying pressure on their already thin margins,” said Colleen Hall, Senior Vice President, Revenue Cycle, Kodiak, in the news release.
“Patient collections have become an increasingly difficult challenge for hospitals due primarily to a shift in payer mix. Because of rising deductibles and increased patient responsibility, the percentage of healthcare provider revenue collected directly from patients increased to more than 30% from less than 10% over 10 years,” the HFMA noted.
Thus, the financial tension being experienced by both patients and providers, and the need for patients to prepay for some treatment, are extreme challenges. The situation may call for clinical laboratory leaders to not only focus on quality testing and efficient workflow, but also affordability and access to services.
Are ongoing protests and federal investigations into health plan practices evidence that customers have reached a tipping point?
It is not common for beneficiaries to get arrested in front of their health plan’s headquarters. But that is what happened in July, when protesters gathered outside of UnitedHealth Group (UHG) in Minnetonka, Minn., to stress their dissatisfaction with the health insurer. More than 150 protesters participated in the demonstration. Eleven were arrested and charged with misdemeanors for blocking the public street outside of the headquarters.
Their main complaint is that the insurer systemically denies care for patients. This is a situation that probably resonates with hospitals, physicians, clinical laboratory professionals, and pathologists, who often see their own claims denied by health plans, including UnitedHealthcare.
“UnitedHealth Group’s profiteering by denying care is a disgrace, leaving people across Minnesota and all of the United States without the care they desperately need,” wrote members of the People’s Action Institute in a letter to UHG’s CEO Sir Andrew Witty. People’s Action organized the protest as part of its Care Over Cost campaign.
“Health insurance coverage has expanded in America, but we are finding it is private health insurance corporations themselves that are often the largest barrier for people to receive the care they and their doctor agree they need,” Aija Nemer-Aanerud, campaign director with People’s Action told CBS News.
“We have asked UnitedHealthcare for systemic changes in their practices and they have refused,” he told Bring Me The News.
Nemer-Aanerud told CBS News that UnitedHealth Group leadership has “refused to acknowledge that prior authorizations and claim denials are a widespread problem.”
“Our mission is to help people live healthier lives and help make the health system work better for everyone,” said UnitedHealth Group CEO Sir Andrew Witty (above) during a Senate Finance Committee hearing in May, NTD reported. “Together, we are working to help enable our health system’s transition to value-based care and are empowering physicians and their care teams to deliver more personalized, high-quality care that delivers better outcomes at a lower cost.” (Photo copyright: The Business Journals.)
People’s Action Institute Demands
In the letter, the changes People’s Action urged UHG to make include:
Ceasing to deny claims for treatments recommended by medical professionals.
Overturning existing denials for recommended treatments.
Stopping the practice of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) and algorithms to deny claims in bulk.
Executing a publicly shared audit and reimbursing federal/state governments for public money diverted by claims and prior-authorization denials within Medicare and Medicaid systems.
Expediting payment of claims.
Making public the details of denied claims and prior authorizations by market, plan, state, geography, gender, disability and race.
A spokesperson for UnitedHealth Group told CBS News that the company has had several talks with People’s Action and has settled some of the organization’s issues. That spokesperson also confirmed that UHG tried to discuss specific cases, but the issues People’s Action brought up had already been resolved.
“The safety and security of our employees is a top priority. We have resolved the member-specific concerns raised by this group and remain open to a constructive dialogue about ensuring access to high-quality, affordable care,” UnitedHealthcare said in a statement.
Profits over Patients?
The People’s Action Institute is a national network of individuals and organizations who strive to help people across the US overturn medical care denials made by insurance giants. Its Care Over Cost campaign aims to influence insurers to initiate systemic changes in their practices.
The recent protest occurred as UnitedHealth Group released its second-quarter financial report claiming $7.9 billion in profits. The company provides health insurance for more than 47 million people across the country and took in $22.4 billion in profits last year.
“UnitedHealth Group’s $7.9 billion quarterly profit announcement is the result of a business model built on pocketing premiums and billions of dollars in public funds, then profiting by refusing to authorize or pay for care,” said Nemer-Aanerud in a press release. “People should not have to turn to public petitions or direct actions to get UnitedHealthcare to pay for the care they need to live.”
“UnitedHealth Group made a decision to spend billions of dollars on stock buybacks, lobbying, and executive pay instead of paying for care people need,” Nemer-Aanerud told Bring Me The News. “They are harming people for profit and should be held accountable for that choice.”
“We all pay for this convoluted system, whether it is in our health insurance premiums or in our public programs. UnitedHealth Group is making billions of dollars in profit by denying people care, including in privatized Medicare and Medicaid plans, to the point that it has prompted a federal investigation … Still, we left the meeting with hope,” they added.
Protests like this one against UnitedHealth Group serve as evidence that the current system of commercial health insurance plans could be deteriorating. This descent may cause customers of these plans to take unprecedented actions to fight for necessary medical care.
As noted earlier, hospitals, physician groups, clinical laboratories, and anatomic pathology groups that see their own claims often denied by health insurers without a clear reason for the denials are probably sympathetic to the plight of patients who are frustrated with how UnitedHealthcare denies their access to care.
Only about a third of the hospitals surveyed are in full compliance with giving public access to prices, the watchdog group contends, but the AHA disputes its methodology
It’s been almost four years since the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) enacted its Hospital Price Transparency rule which requires hospitals—including their medical laboratories—to make their prices available and easily accessible to the public. But according to a 2024 report from PatientRightsAdvocate.org (PRA), just 34.5% of reviewed hospitals are fully compliant with the transparency rule. That’s a slight decrease from the 36% compliance rate the PRA listed in its 2023 report, the watchdog group stated in a blog post.
Released on Feb. 29, this was the group’s sixth semi-annual hospital price transparency report since the CMS rule took effect in 2021.
The rule “requires hospitals to post all prices online, easily accessible and searchable, in the form of (i) a single machine-readable standard charges file for all items, services, and drugs by all payers and all plans, the de-identified minimum and maximum negotiated rates, and all discounted cash prices, as well as (ii) prices for the 300 most common shoppable services either as a consumer-friendly standard charges display listing actual prices or, alternatively, as a price estimator tool,” the report states.
The required viewable prices are to be for, among others, medical imaging, clinical laboratory testing, and outpatient procedures such as a colonoscopies, etc.
“With full transparency, consumers can benefit from competition to make informed decisions, protect from overcharges, billing errors, and fraud, and lower their costs,” the report states. “Employer and union plans can use pricing and claims data to improve their plan designs and direct members to lower cost, high-quality facilities. However, continued noncompliance impedes this ability.”
At any time, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) could decide to file charges against a hospital or a clinical laboratory for not posting their prices on their websites in compliance with the federal rule. Such an action by DOJ officials would be to specifically put the entire industry on notice that there will be consequences for non-compliance.
The PRA’s report provides hospitals and clinical laboratories with a reminder that consumer watchdogs are also monitoring compliance.
“Our comprehensive study of 2,000 hospitals indicates nearly two-thirds (65.5%) of hospitals reviewed continue failing to fully comply with the rule, yet the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has only fined fourteen hospitals for noncompliance out of the thousands found to not be meeting all of the rule’s requirements. When hospitals don’t post their prices, they can charge whatever they want,” wrote PRA Founder and Chairman Cynthia Fisher (above) in a letter to President Biden. Hospital medical laboratories are also required to post their prices for tests. (Photo copyright: PatientRightsAdvocate.org.)
To compile their report, PRA analysts examined the websites of 2,000 US hospitals between September 3, 2023, and January 13, 2023, and found that 1,311, or 65.5%, were not in full compliance, mostly due to “missing or significantly incomplete pricing data,” the report states.
More than 6,000 licensed hospitals operate in the US, the report notes. The group said it focused on hospitals owned by the largest US health systems.
Among the notable findings:
The 2023 report found that 98% of Kaiser Permanente’s 42 hospitals were in full compliance with the rule, but in the 2024 study, none were compliant because the hospitals began posting multiple files instead of a single file.
In total, 103 hospitals rated as noncompliant in the previous report were found to be compliant in the new analysis. Conversely, 135 hospitals previously rated as compliant were listed as noncompliant in the 2024 report.
The report lauded three hospitals for posting “exemplary files” that were “easily accessible, downloadable, machine-readable, and including all negotiated rates by payer and plan.” Those were Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, Mass.; Christus Santa Rosa Medical Center in San Antonio; and UW Health University Hospital in Madison, Wis.
In its discussion of the findings, PRA called on CMS to step up enforcement of the pricing transparency rule. The group also wants the government to close what it describes as the “estimator tool loophole,” which allows hospitals to list non-binding price estimates and price ranges instead of concrete prices.
“Price estimator tools do not achieve the goals of price transparency policy and fundamentally undermine the intent of the regulations,” the PRA’s report contends.
In response to the 2023 PRA report, AHA Group Vice President for Public Policy Molly Smith issued the following statement, “Once again, Patient Rights Advocate has put out a report that blatantly misconstrues, ignores, and mischaracterizes hospitals’ compliance with federal price transparency regulations. The AHA has repeatedly debunked point-by-point Patient Rights Advocate’s intentionally misleading ‘reports’ on price transparency.”
Citing CMS data, Smith said that as of 2022, 70% of US hospitals had complied with two key federal rules:
One requiring hospitals to post machine-readable files with pricing information.
The other mandating a list of prices for at least 300 “shoppable” services.
More than 80% of hospitals had complied with at least one of the rules, she contended in an AHA press release.
Speaking to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, PRA Founder and Chairman Cynthia Fisher said her group performs a more in-depth study of pricing data compared with CMS.
“They did not do a comprehensive review,” she told the publication. “We do a deep dive for full compliance.”
The PRA study came on the heels of a January report from Turquoise Health that offered a rosier assessment of hospital compliance, albeit with different criteria. According to the Turquoise report, as of Dec. 15, 2023:
90.7% of 6,357 US hospitals had posted machine-readable files,
83.1% posted information about negotiated rates, and
77.3% posted cash rates.
The Turquoise Health end-to-end price transparency platform uses a 5-point system to rate the quality of hospitals’ machine-readable files and said that more than 50% scored five stars. Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists may find it timely to review their lab organization’s compliance with this federal price transparency rule.
