Physician use of genetic tests continues to grow at robust rates, even during the pandemic, but uncertainty about managed care reimbursement hangs over the market
It may surprise many pathologists and clinical laboratory managers to learn that the market for genetic testing is robust and growing swiftly, even in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, the explosion in both the number of unique genetic tests available to physicians, and the willingness of doctors to order genetic tests for their patients, are creating major challenges for both government and private payers.
Moreover, how payers are attempting to gain control over this boom in genetic testing is creating serious problems for genetic testing companies seeking reimbursement for their test claims. This is because health insurers are taking aggressive steps to control their spending on genetic tests. Some of those steps include:
Prior-authorization requirements for an ever-larger number of genetic tests.
Reducing the prices paid for high-cost genetic tests.
Tough audits that use sampling and extrapolation and produce sizeable recoupment demands.
Unexpected Developments in Genetic Test Marketplace
These are reasons why clinical laboratories need to fully understand the state of the genetic testing market. Physicians are receptive to ordering genetic tests that will improve the care they provide their patients. But health insurers want better control over the unplanned and substantial increases in the total amount of money they pay out for the surging number of genetic test claims.
Collectively, these developments confront genetic testing companies with a mix of good news and bad news. The good news is that more physicians are using genetic tests in their daily medical practice. The bad news is that many payers are erecting ever-more restrictive hurdles that labs must overcome when submitting genetic test claims and seeking adequate payment.
Strategic Insights into What’s Changing with Genetic Testing
This webinar will be one of the most important strategic assessments of genetic testing presented to the clinical laboratory and diagnostics industries since the COVID-19 pandemic began last March. Your presenters are recognized thought-leaders in the genetic testing and laboratory medicine industries. Speaking in order are:
Bruce Quinn, MD, PhD, Principal, Bruce Quinn Associates LLC, Los Angeles: An expert in how Medicare and private payers establish coverage guidelines and prices for new genetic tests, Dr. Quinn will explain the key differences in how private payers are managing genetic test utilization and payment, compare to the federal Medicare program.
Heather Agostinelli, Asst. Vice President, Strategic Revenue Operations, XIFIN Inc., San Diego: Heather will provide a detailed perspective on the daily actions by payers as they process claims and issue payment for genetic tests. She will also present recommendations for how labs can optimize the number of clean genetic test claims, thus helping shorten payment times in ways that improve cash flow.
Rob Metcalf, CEO, Concert Genetics, Nashville, Tenn.: He will discuss the scope and scale of the explosion in the number of genetic test claims by sharing data, charts, and analyses usually only available to clients.
Your Chair and Moderator will be Robert L. Michel, Editor-in-Chief of The Dark Report.
The purpose of the upcoming webinar includes helping attendees with the following and more:
Learn why payers must now deal with more than 1,000 new genetic testing products launching every month and how that complicates claims processing.
Understand how the variation in CPT coding by different genetic testing labs complicates claims processing by payers.
Learn why “benefit investigation” is already a huge factor as consumers seek the lab with the cheapest genetic test price before they agree to be tested.
Master the art of working with prior authorization programs and know why having documents prior to authorization still does not necessarily mean the payer will reimburse for a genetic test claim.
Understand Medicare’s policy changes at the national level for genetic tests.
Know the core elements of the Medicare MolDx program that gov-erns genetic test claims across 28 states.
Valuable Information for Financial Analysis, Managed Care Executives
In addition to bringing clinical pathologists and directors/managers of clinical laboratories up to date on the genetic testing marketplace, this webinar will provide valuable insights into financial analysts’ tracking of genetic testing companies, managed care executives’ handling of genetic testing claims, genetic counselors, and others involved in managing clinical service lines that utilize genetic tests in patient care.
Called the Geographic Direct Contracting Model (GEO), CMS’ new “voluntary payment model” aims at giving providers of Medicare Part A and Part B services “a direct incentive to improve care across entire geographic regions,” according to a CMS press release.
“The Geographic Direct Contracting Model is part of the Innovation Center’s suite of Direct Contracting models and is one of the Center’s largest bets to date on value-based care,” Brad Smith, Deputy Administrator and Director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), told RevCycleIntelligence. Smith is also the former CEO and co-founder of Aspire Health.
According to a CMS Fact Sheet, the GEO model “will test whether a geographic-based approach to value-based care can improve quality of care and reduce costs for Medicare beneficiaries across an entire geographic region.”
“This model allows participating entities to build integrated relationships with healthcare providers and invest in population health in a region to better coordinate care, improve quality, and lower the cost of care for Medicare beneficiaries in a community, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma in the CMS press release. Clinical laboratories may find opportunities as well, to collaborate with physicians in the clinical decision-making process. (Photo copyright: Business Insider.)
“Leveraging best practices and lessons learned from prior Innovation Center models, Geo will enable Direct Contracting Entities (DCEs) to build integrated relationships with healthcare providers and community organizations in a region to better coordinate care and address the clinical and social needs of Medicare beneficiaries,” the CMS Fact Sheet states.
“If we’re successful, we’ll move value-based care from something that might be 10 or 20% of somebody’s revenue to something that’s 80 or hopefully 100% of somebody’s revenue (in five to 10 years),” Smith told MedPage Today.
Healthcare providers and health plans that participate in the Geographic Direct Contracting model must be covered entities under the Health Insurance and Portability Accountability Act (HIPAA) and submit applications by April 2, 2021, the CMS fact sheet states.
The first performance period starts Jan. 1, 2022, and participation is voluntary. Direct contracting entities take “100% shared savings and shared losses for Medicare Part A and B services for aligned Medicare fee for service beneficiaries in a defined region,” the CMS fact sheet explained.
CMS is considering implementing the GEO model in Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis, Orlando, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Riverside, San Diego, and Tampa.
“By initially testing the model in a small number of geographies, we will be able to thoughtfully learn how these flexibilities are able to impact quality and costs,” Smith told RevCycleIntelligence.
How Will Value-Based Care Programs Affect Clinical Laboratories?
Value-based payment arrangements require doctors to accept changes to how they are reimbursed for their services. In kind, doctors are examining how clinical laboratories can take on an enhanced role in clinical decision making.
“Physicians and hospitals in a value-based environment need a different level of service and professional consultation from the lab and pathology group because they are being incented to detect disease earlier and be active in managing patients with chronic conditions to keep them healthy and out of the hospital,” said Robert Michel, Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of Dark Daily and its sister publication The Dark Report.
Michel explained that value-based care providers are calling on labs to go beyond reporting accurate test results within allotted turnaround times. “They want collaboration in identifying at-risk patients and in finding and closing gaps in care by using laboratory test results.”
Medical laboratory leaders may want to reach out to healthcare providers participating in value-based care models to explore areas of interest relating to patient population, chronic conditions, and severity of illness.
Clinical laboratories that offer testing and reporting and additionally collaborate with healthcare providers and health plans in ways that contribute to improved patient outcomes and lowered costs, may be in a position to earn any financial rewards from these and other new value-based arrangements.
CEOs of NorDx Laboratories, Sonora Quest Laboratories, and HealthPartners/Park Nicollet Laboratories expect demand for SARS-CoV-2 tests to only increase in coming months
The short answer is that large volumes of COVID-19 testing will be needed for the remaining weeks of 2020 and substantial COVID-19 testing will occur throughout 2021 and even into 2022. This has major implications for all clinical laboratories in the United States as they plan budgets for 2021 and attempt to manage their supply chain in coming weeks. The additional challenge in coming months is the surge in respiratory virus testing that is typical of an average influenza season.
Stan Schofield (above center), President of NorDx, a regional laboratory corporation that supports an integrated delivery system at MaineHealth in Portland, Maine.
Rick L. Panning (above right), MBA, MLS(ASCP)CM, retired as of Oct. 2 from the position of Senior Administrative Director of Laboratory Services for HealthPartners and Park Nicollet in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota.
Each panelist was asked how his parent health system and clinical laboratory was preparing to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic through the end of 2020 and into 2021.
First to answer was Panning, whose laboratory serves the Minneapolis-Saint Paul market.
A distinguishing feature of healthcare in the Twin Cities is that it is at the forefront of operational and clinical integration. Competition among health networks is intense and consumer-focused services are essential if a hospital or physician office is to retain its patients and expand market share.
Panning first explained how the pandemic is intensifying in Minnesota. “Our state has been on a two-week path of rising COVID-19 case numbers,” he said. “That rise is mirrored by increased hospitalizations for COVID-19 and ICU bed utilization is going up dramatically. The number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients has doubled during this time and Minnesota is surrounded by states that are even in worse shape than us.”
These trends are matched by the outpatient/outreach experience. “We are also seeing more patients use virtual visits to our clinics, compared to recent months,” noted Panning. “About 35% of clinical visits are virtual because people do not want to physically go into a clinic or doctor’s office.
“Given these recent developments, we’ve had to expand our network of specimen collection sites because of social distancing requirements,” explained Panning. “Each patient collection requires more space, along with more time to clean and sterilize that space before it can be used for the next patient. Our lab and our parent health system are focused on what we call crisis standards of care.
“For all these reasons, our planning points to an ongoing demand for COVID-19 testing,” he added. “Influenza season is arriving, and the pandemic is accelerating. Given that evidence, and the guidance from state and federal officials, we expect our clinical laboratory will be providing significant numbers of COVID-19 tests for the balance of this year and probably far into 2021.”
COVID-19 Vaccine Could Increase Antibody and Rapid Molecular Testing
Arizona is seeing comparable increases in new daily COVID-19 cases. “There’s been a strong uptick that coincides with the governor’s decision to loosen restrictions that allowed bars and exercise clubs to open,” stated Dexter. “We’ve gone from a 3.8% positivity rate up to 7% as of last night. By the end of this week, we could be a 10% positivity rate.”
Looking at the balance of 2020 and into 2021, Dexter said, “Our lab is in the midst of budget planning. We are budgeting to support an increase in COVID-19 PCR testing in both November and December. Arizona state officials believe that COVID-19 cases will peak at the end of January and we’ll start seeing the downside in February of 2021.”
The possible availability of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is another factor in planning at Dexter’s clinical laboratory. “If such a vaccine becomes available, we think there will be a significant increase in antibody testing, probably starting in second quarter and continuing for the balance of 2021. There will also be a need for rapid COVID-19 molecular tests. Today, such tests are simply unavailable. Because of supply chain difficulties, we predict that they won’t be available in sufficient quantities until probably late 2021.”
COVID-19 Testing Supply Shortages Predicted as Demand Increases
At NorDx Laboratories in Portland, Maine, the expectation is that the COVID-19 pandemic will continue even into 2022. “Our team believes that people will be wearing masks for 18 more months and that COVID-19 testing with influenza is going to be the big demand this winter,” observed Schofield. “The demand for both COVID-19 and influenza testing will press all of us up against the wall because there are not enough reagents, plastics, and plates to handle the demand that we see building even now.
“Our hospitals are already preparing for a second surge of COVID-19 cases,” he said.
COVID-19 patients will be concentrated in only three or four hospitals. The other hospitals will handle routine work. Administration does not want to have COVID-19 patients spread out over 12 or 14 hospitals, as happened last March and April.
“Administration of the health system and our clinical laboratory think that the COVID-19 test volume and demand for these tests will be tough on our lab for another 12 months. This will be particularly true for COVID-19 molecular tests.”
As described above, the CEOs of these three major clinical laboratories believe that the demand for COVID-19 testing will continue well into 2021, and possibly also into 2022. A recording of the full session was captured by the virtual Executive War College and, as a public service to the medical laboratory and pathology profession, access to this recording will be provided to any lab professional who contacts info@darkreport.com and provides their email address, name, title, and organization.
Robert L. Michel, Panelist—Publisher, Editor-in-Chief, The Dark Report and Dark Daily, Spicewood, Texas.
Given the importance of sound strategic planning for all clinical laboratories and pathology groups during their fall budget process, the virtual Executive War College is opening this session to all professionals in laboratory medicine, in vitro diagnostics, and lab informatics.
Financial losses for hospitals and health systems due to cancelled procedures and coronavirus expenses will lead to changes in healthcare delivery, operations, and clinical laboratory test ordering
COVID-19 is reshaping how people work, shop, and go to school. Is healthcare the next target of the coronavirus-induced transformation? According to two experts, the COVID-19 pandemic is pushing hospitals and health systems toward a “fundamental and likely sustained transformation,” which means clinical laboratories must be prepared to adapt to new provider needs and customer demands.
Burik and Fisher called attention to the staggering $50 billion-per-month loss for hospitals and health systems that was first revealed in an American Hospital Association (AHA) report published in May. The AHA report estimated a $200 billion loss from March 1, 2020, to June 30, 2020, due to increased COVID-19 expenses and cancelled elective and non-elective surgeries.
Adding to the financial carnage is the expectation that patient volumes will be slow to return. In “Hospitals Forecast Declining Revenues and Elective Procedure Volumes, Telehealth Adoption Struggles Due to COVID-19,” Burik said, “Healthcare has largely been insulated from previous economic disruptions, with capital spending more acutely affected than operations. But this time may be different since the COVID-19 crisis started with a one-time significant impact on operations that is not fully covered by federal funding.
“Providers face a long-term decrease in commercial payment, coupled with a need to boost caregiver and consumer-facing digital engagement, all during the highest unemployment rate the US has seen since the Great Depression,” he continued. “For organizations in certain locations, it may seem like business as usual. For many others, these issues and greater competition will demand more significant, material change.”
A Guidehouse analysis of a Healthcare Financial Management Association (HFMA) survey, suggests one-in-three provider executives expect to end 2020 with revenues at 15% below pre-pandemic levels, while one-in-five of them anticipate a 30% or greater drop in revenues. Government aid, Guidehouse noted, is likely to cover COVID-19-related costs for only 11% of survey respondents.
“The figures illustrate how the virus has hurled American medicine into unparalleled volatility. No one knows how long patients will continue to avoid getting elective care or how state restrictions and climbing unemployment will affect their decision making once they have the option,” Burik and Fisher wrote. “All of which leaves one thing for certain: Healthcare’s delivery, operations, and competitive dynamics are poised to undergo a fundamental and likely sustained transformation.”
As a result, the two experts predict these pandemic-related changes to emerge:
Payer-Provider Complexity on the Rise; Patients Will Struggle. As the pandemic has shown, elective services are key revenues for hospitals and health systems. But the pandemic also will leave insured patients struggling with high deductibles, while the number of newly uninsured will grow. Furthermore, upholding of the hospital price transparency ruling will add an unwelcomed spotlight on healthcare pricing and provider margins.
Best-in-Class Technology Will Be a Necessity, Not a Luxury. COVID-19 has been a boon for telehealth and digital health usage, creating what is likely to be a permanent expansion of virtual healthcare delivery. But only one-third of executives surveyed say their organizations currently have the infrastructure to support such a shift, which means investments in speech recognition software, patient information pop-up screens, and other infrastructure to smooth workflows will be needed.
“Through all the uncertainty COVID-19 has presented, one thing hospitals and health systems can be certain of is their business models will not return to what they were pre-pandemic,” Guidehouse Partner Chuck Peck, MD (above), a former health system CEO, said in a statement. “A comprehensive consumer-facing digital strategy built around telehealth will be a requirement for providers. Moreover, shifting hardware and physical assets to the cloud, and use of robotic process automation, has proven to be successful in improving back-office operations in other industries. Providers will need to follow suit.” Clinical laboratories and anatomic pathology groups should track these developments and respond appropriately to meet the changing needs of the hospitals and physicians they serve with diagnostic testing services. (Photo copyright: Athens Banner-Herald.)
The Tech Giants Are Coming. Both major retailers and technology stalwarts, such as Amazon, Walmart, and Walgreens, are entering the healthcare space. In January, Dark Daily reported on Amazon’s roll out of Amazon Care, a 24/7 virtual clinic, for its Seattle-based employees. Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) is adding to a healthcare portfolio that includes online pharmacy PillPack and joint-venture Haven Healthcare. Meanwhile, Walmart is offering $25 teeth cleaning and $30 checkups at its new Health Centers. Dark Daily covered this in an e-briefing in May, which also covered a new partnership between Walgreens and VillageMD to open up to 700 primary care clinics in 30 US cities in the next five years.
Work Location Changes Mean Construction Cost Reductions. According to Guidehouse’s analysis of the HFMA COVID-19 survey, one-in-five executives expect some jobs to remain virtual post-pandemic, leading to permanent changes in the amount of real estate needed for healthcare delivery. The need for a smaller real estate footprint could reduce capital expenditures and costs for hospitals and healthcare systems in the long term.
Consolidation is Coming. COVID-19-induced financial pressures will quickly reveal winners and losers and force further consolidation in the healthcare industry. “Resilient” healthcare systems are likely to be those with a 6% to 8% operating margins, providing the financial cushion necessary to innovate and reimagine healthcare post-pandemic.
Policy Will Get More Thoughtful and Data-Driven. COVID-19 reopening plans will force policymakers to craft thoughtful, data-driven approaches that will necessitate engagement with health system leaders. Such collaborations will be important not only during this current crisis, but also will provide a blueprint for policy coordination during any future pandemic.
As Burik and Fisher point out, hospitals and healthcare systems emerged from previous economic downturns mostly unscathed. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has proven the exception, leaving providers and health systems facing long-term decreases in commercial payments, while facing increased spending to bolster caregiver- and consumer-facing engagement.
“While situations may differ by market, it’s clear that the pre-pandemic status quo won’t work for most hospitals or health systems,” they wrote.
The message for clinical laboratory managers and surgical pathologists is clear. Patients may be permanently changing their decision-making process when considering elective surgery and selecting a provider, which will alter provider test ordering and lab revenues. Independent clinical laboratories, as well as medical labs operated by hospitals and health systems, must be prepared for the financial stresses that are likely coming.
Media reporting on disparities in COVID-19 test billing sparks renewed calls for increased transparency in medical laboratory test charges
Recent media reports of massive disparities in the prices charged for COVID-19 lab tests throughout the United States have citizens and law makers alike again calling for increased transparency in clinical laboratory test charges.
One recent example involves the New York Times (NYT), which after learning that Austin-based Gibson Diagnostic Labs (GDL) of Irving, Tex., billed a patient $2,315 for one COVID-19 test, questioned the disparity in coronavirus testing charges. The article, titled, “Most Coronavirus Tests Cost About $100. Why Did One Cost $2,315?” brought unwanted attention to the Texas clinical laboratory.
On July 16, the NYT reported that GDL, “has run some of the most expensive coronavirus tests in America.” In addition, the paper reported that health insurance companies have paid GDL $2,315 for individual COVID-19 tests, but that in “a couple of cases,” the price rose to $6,946. However, that higher amount resulted “when the lab said it mistakenly charged patients three times the base rate.”
In response to the NYT report, GDL released a statement that said, “In April 2020, a commercial insurer doing business with Gibson Diagnostic Labs inquired about the company’s pricing practices regarding COVID-19 testing. In response to the inquiry, the company conducted an internal review and identified commercial claims that were billed incorrectly by the company’s third-party biller. Because this incident did not meet our standards of quality, service, and compliance, the company terminated its relationship with the third-party biller.”
Gibson Diagnostic Labs (above) in Irving, Texas, recently drew the attention of the New York Times after, according to GDL, its third-party biller accidentally used an incorrect CPT code causing one COVID-19 test customer to receive a bill for $2,315. Further, the NYT reported that “[GDL] billed 117 tests at that price and had 23 of the claims paid in full. Some insurers paid partial reimbursements or sent back no money at all.” In a statement, GDL said it has corrected the mistake and reimbursed all affected parties. (Photo copyright: Dylan Hollingsworth/The New York Times.)
GDL Blames Third-party Biller for Errors
Responding to questions from Dark Daily, GDL provided details that were not previously reported. In an email, GDL said it worked closely with a NYT reporter by providing information about the incident, but that the reporter left out key information.
GDL also said that after the NYT’s inquiry, the lab reviewed its billing systems and learned that the CPT code for 23 COVID-19 commercial claims were transposed as a result of human error, resulting in payments totaling $53,255. The review also showed that the lab’s third-party biller had insufficient systems in place to prevent such errors.
“Upon learning this, we made the decision to terminate our contract with our third-party biller,” GDL said. “Finally, within 24-hours of identifying the billing error—and prior to the story being published—we rebilled all the claims, refunded payments to the respective payers, and followed up with each payer to ensure receipt of the corrected claims.
“Immediately after the claims were rebilled, we contacted all 205 patients who may have received an incorrect EOB [explanation of benefits], explained what happened, and apologized,” GDL stated.
Going forward, GDL said it will require its new biller to conduct regular audits each quarter and to maintain certain levels of automation and staffing to manage higher volume without disruption. GDL also said it regrets the disruption and inconvenience the billing error caused to its clients and patients.
Lessons for Clinical Laboratories
For clinical laboratories, there are at least four lessons that can be learned from GDL’s experience:
First, labs should be aware of how their own charges for all tests compare with what other labs charge, particularly when charging patients for high-profile tests, such as those for the new coronavirus. What Medicare and other payers charge for these tests has been reported widely, so that many patients are likely aware of the reasonable and customary charges for such tests.
Second, clinical labs may want to note that charging high prices for these tests could lead health insurers to increase their scrutiny of lab charges. The NYT article quoted Angela Meoli, a senior vice president at Aetna, saying, “We’ve seen a small number of laboratories that are charging egregious prices for COVID-19 tests.”
Third, coverage in the NYT often leads other publications to cover the same story. In this case, Kaiser Health News (KHN) and other news organizations have reported on what GDL charged and linked that story to their coverage of surprise medical bills.
Fourth, GDL recommends responding appropriately to journalists’ inquiries. However, lab should be aware that, even then, the news media may not report the facts as labs would prefer.
All of these lessons are important during the COVID-19 pandemic, because newspapers and other news organizations have encouraged consumers to submit copies of their lab tests and other bills. Such examples of charges above normal rates often generate unwanted coverage for hospitals, health systems, healthcare providers, and in this case, a clinical diagnostic laboratory.
All of this may be academic for those clinical laboratory managers and pathologists who scrupulously follow appropriate laws and guidelines for coding, billing, and collecting for clinical lab tests of all types—not just the COVID-19 test. But, year after year, there are individuals who operate certain clinical laboratories and who are willing to push their compliance with long-established laws and regulations for short-term profit. When these abusive lab practices surface and attract the attention of both federal prosecutors and national news media, it is the entire clinical laboratory profession that gets characterized in negative ways.
Certainly, many medical laboratory professionals would agree that the system of enforcing federal and state laws and pursuing obvious cases of fraudulent practices involving clinical lab testing leaves much to be desired. However, there are already several examples of federal prosecutors charging lab owners and managers for violating fraud and anti-kickback statutes in their marketing of COVID-19 tests. Hopefully the national news media will be effective in spotting illegal practices involving COVID-19 testing and bring more transparency to the lab testing marketplace.
Two national studies find pathologists bill out-of-network more frequently than other hospital-based specialties, and one study links that behavior to insurer reimbursement rates
Surprise bills for out-of-network services continue to be an important issue for healthcare consumers. Now comes a recently-released report from the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI) claiming that pathologists are the specialists that most often bill for out-of-network hospital charges.
The HCCI study examined the prevalence and frequency of out-of-network billing among six specialties. The sample used for the report included 13.8 million healthcare visits to over 35 thousand hospital-based healthcare providers that occurred in 2017. The types of visits examined for the report were:
emergency medicine,
pathology,
radiology,
anesthesiology,
behavioral health, and
cardiovascular services.
The researchers calculated the percentage of out-of-network claims for both inpatient and outpatient visits to each type of the six specialties.
The study found that, overall, less than half of the specialties billed out-of-network for services obtained at in-network facilities. Providers with at least one out-of-network claim associated with an in-network outpatient visit ranged from 15% for behavioral health to 49% for emergency medicine.
Pathologists’ Out-of-Network Billing
Among the pathologists surveyed, HCCI found 33% had at least one out-of-network claim for an in-network outpatient visit. Providers with at least one out-of-network claim associated with an in-network inpatient visit ranged from 18% for cardiovascular services to 44% for both emergency and pathology services.
HCCI researchers also examined how often individual providers in the six specialties billed out-of-network at least one time and found that the majority billed out of network less than 10% of the time. However, this varied among the specialties with 36% of pathologists who billed out-of-network for inpatient visits, and 20% of pathologists who billed out-of-network for outpatient visits, did so more than 90% of the time.
The graphic above, taken from the latest HCCI report, shows “the share of providers who billed out-of-network at least once for inpatient and outpatient visits” and illustrates the percentage of out-of-network billings by pathologists compared to other hospital-based healthcare specialties. (Graphic copyright: Health Care Cost Institute.)
Pathologists Top List of Out-of-Network Specialists in Previous HCCI report
Last November, HCCI released a similar report that examined the commonality of out-of-network billing for the same six specialties plus surgical services that took place in 2017. Based on their collected data, they also estimated the amount of surprise bills that patients could expect to receive for those services.
That report found that nationally:
16.5% of visits with emergency room services had an out-of-network claim from an emergency medicine specialist.
12.9% of visits with lab/pathology services had an out-of-network claim from a pathologist.
8.3% of visits with anesthesiology services had an out-of-network claim from an anesthesiologist.
6.7% of visits with behavioral health services had an out-of-network claim from a behavioral health provider.
4.2% of visits with radiology services had an out-of-network claim from a radiologist.
2.1% of visits with surgical services had an out-of-network claim from a surgeon.
2.0% of visits with cardiovascular services had an out-of-network claim from a cardiovascular specialist.
Surgical Services the Most Expensive Out-of-Network Bill
This study also found broad variation in charges between types of services and healthcare settings. The researchers determined that the potential surprise bills for surgical visits due to out-of-network claims were of the greatest magnitude. HCCI estimated that the average potential surprise bill associated with an inpatient surgery was $22,248, while the potential surprise bill associated with an outpatient surgery was $8,493.
Out-of-Network Surprise Billing Varies Widely Depending on Location
The data was further broken down by state. For pathology services, the percentage of visits with out-of-network services in 2017 ranged from 0.3% in Minnesota to 75.3% in Kansas. HCCI researchers estimated the potential surprise bill for out-of-network pathology claims for inpatient services ranged from $14 in Louisiana to $167 in Delaware. The estimated surprise bill for out-of-network outpatient pathology services ranged from $23 in Louisiana to $218 in Wyoming.
Pathologists Also Top Out-of-Network Biller in Yale University Study
A Yale University study into surprise billing released in December and published in the journal Health Affairs found similar results, Modern Healthcare reported. This study examined surprise out-of-network bills incurred by patients who sought care at in-network hospitals for four types of specialists that are not chosen by patients:
pathologists,
anesthesiologists,
radiologists, and
assistant surgeons.
Zack Cooper, PhD (above), is an associate professor of public health at the Yale School of Public Health and one of the study’s authors. He noted in Yale News, “When physicians whom patients do not choose and cannot avoid bill out of network, it exposes people to unexpected and expensive medical bills and undercuts the functioning of US healthcare markets,” adding, “Moreover, the ability to bill out of network allows specialists to negotiate inflated in-network rates, which are passed on to consumers in the form of higher insurance premiums.” (Photo copyright: Yale School of Public Health.)
For the Yale study, the researchers examined employer-sponsored insurance claims from a major commercial insurer for healthcare visits that occurred at in-network hospitals in 2015. They found that 12.3% of cases involving a pathologist were billed out-of-network, which was the highest percentage of the four specialties analyzed. By contrast, 11.8% of anesthesiologists, 11.3% of assistant surgeons, and 5.6% of radiologists billed out-of-network for their services.
The Yale study also found that “the ability of these four specialties to send patients out-of-network bills allowed them to negotiate high in-network payments from insurers, which leads to higher insurance premiums for individuals.”
The Yale study researchers determined that were these specialists unable to bill out-of-network, the particular healthcare plan would save 3.4% of their expenditures or about $40 billion per year, Modern Healthcare reported.
Surprise bills for out-of-network services burden both patients and providers. Insurers want beneficiaries to have access to hospitals and services, but providers in many specialties do not want to contract with those insurers due to low reimbursements.
This disconnect results in providers staying out-of-network and patients receiving surprise bills for out-of-network services even though the hospital was in-network. And pathologists are at the top of the list.
Anatomic pathologists across the country will want to track how government and private payers respond to these findings by amending coverage and reimbursement guidelines in ways that may be unfavorable to the pathology profession.
