Stakeholders Praise 4 House Members Letter to Admin Regarding Surprise Billing Interim Final Rule
Key stakeholders issued the following statements regarding a bipartisan letter led by Congressmen
"America's Essential Hospitals supports protecting patients from surprise medical bills. We agree with these bipartisan Congressional leaders that the Administration must implement the No Surprises Act as
"The fair and responsible implementation of the ban on surprise billing is vital to protecting patients from unexpected medical bills and to the ability of safety-net hospitals to continue to serve their communities.
"The No Surprises Act protects patients from surprise medical bills and establishes a balanced process to resolve payment disputes between insurance plans and health care providers," said Greater New York Hospital Association GNYHA President,
"HANYS strongly supported the passage of the bipartisan No Surprises Act, which like
"While the No Surprises Act and its implementing Interim Final Rule (IFR) protects patients from surprise bills, that same IFR dismisses nearly two years of negotiation and compromise in failing to provide the fair arbitration process prescribed by
"
"When passing the No Surprises Act,
"APMA supports efforts to protect patients from surprise medical bills and create a balanced process to resolve payment disputes between insurance plans and health care providers.
"Thank you to members of
"The No Surprises Act was passed with the goal of protecting patients from surprise medical bills and creating a fair and equitable process to resolve payment disputes between insurance plans and physicians. While the law requires all factors to be considered equally in an independent dispute resolution (IDR) process, the interim final rule to implement the No Surprises Act establishes a presumption that the median in-network rate, calculated by insurance companies, is the appropriate payment rate. Not only does the IDR process outlined in the rule ignore years of bipartisan and bicameral negotiations, but it also completely misreads Congressional intent, heavily benefiting insurers over physicians. ACS thanks
"Landmark legislation was carefully crafted to protect patients from receiving surprise medical bills while also maintaining physicians' ability to negotiate in good faith," said
"
"As a passionate advocate for advancing the movement to value-based care, we strongly support Congressmen Bucshon, Ruiz, Souzzi and Wenstrup's letter that opposes starting negotiations between insurers and providers with the assumption that the median in-network rate is the appropriate payment amount prior to considering other factors. This policy significantly strengthens an insurer's hand. It will incent ratcheting fee-for-service rates down over time. At a time when we should be incenting moving to value-based care, this policy will incent insurers to double down on fee-for-service," said
"
"Surprise medical bills can interfere with the patient-physician relationship. The
"
"The No Surprises Act was an important step forward in protecting patients from surprise medical bills and resolving billing disputes in a balanced way. Unfortunately, the administration's interim final rule is a windfall for insurers. It moves away from Congressional intent and unfairly favors insurers at the expense of the hospitals and physicians that actually care for patients. The
"This rule directly conflicts with both the letter and intent of the law by prioritizing median in-network payment rates. There is no question that health plans will now drastically lower payment rates and drop more physicians from their provider networks. It is therefore incumbent upon the
"On behalf of 40,000 emergency physicians who remain on the frontlines in communities across the country, the
"The rules governing the No Surprises Act should protect patients and create a playing field between providers and payers that is more level than what has been presented in the interim final rule for surprise billing. The law is clear that when the independent dispute resolution process is triggered, qualifying payment amounts and additional circumstances, such as experience and level of training, should be considered when determining an appropriate out-of-network provider rate. If there was any question about the intent of
"The strong bipartisan support for the Suozzi/Wenstrup letter reinforces
"Our physician anesthesiologists, the majority of whom practice in small and medium size community practices and academic institutions, are very disappointed by the agencies' decision to weaken the arbiter's ability to fairly resolve payment disputes with insurance companies. What was intended to be an independent, unbiased arbiter is now nothing more than a mechanism to rubber stamp the insurer's self-calculated payment rate. We urge the agencies to heed the message of the "Suozzi-Wenstrup-Ruiz-Bucshon" letter, fix the rule and affirm the independence of the arbiter," said
"The
"The new rules to implement the No Surprises Act ignore congressional intent.
"The recently released second IFR implements a dispute resolution process unfairly weighted in favor of insurers. This will affect future negotiations between physicians and insurers that extend well beyond surprise billing. We thank
"In its implementation of the "No Surprises Act", HHS has clearly sought to put its thumb on the scale of the already deep-pocketed health insurance industry. Failing to fix this egregious error by HHS in implementing this rule could have serious adverse consequence for the ability of patients to receive needed care from their physicians and hospitals. MSSNY thanks
See letter here: https://wenstrup.house.gov/updates/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=405203
Your Financial Health: Understanding costs of assisted living
Sen. Brown Reintroduces Bill to Ensure Pregnant Mothers Can Access Affordable Health Care During and After Pregnancy
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News