Balance Billing: The National Conference of Insurance Legislators’ Plan
Posted Jan 13 2011 11:00pm
Astrologie & Sternzeichen & Kalender (1512)
This past week I found myself ( once again ) sitting across a big desk from the surgery scheduler who works for my son’s ear nose and throat doctor. She had a stack of papers for me to sign and as she passed me each one she offered a brief explanation of what it was. As required by the March 2009 revisions to New Jersey’s Codey Law, one informed me that the surgery center where my son’s ear tubes were to be inserted was “physician-owned,” another that it was “out-of-network.” Regarding the latter, the scheduler reassured me that, while the center could “balance bill” me for the portion of the facility fee not covered by my insurance, it would not. I was told the same thing the first time around and nevertheless received a bill from the center for nearly $5,000; after I got over the shock, I called to ask that it be reduced and breathed a sigh of relief when it was, to $100.
So, balance billing was already on my mind when I received an email from Interim Vice Provost & Professor of Law Kathleen M. Boozang , calling my attention to a recent St. Louis Post-Dispatch article reporting that Steven Powell “has sued Washington University in St. Louis, accusing the university’s doctors and other Missouri health care providers of routinely and illegally over-billing for medical services.” After Mr. Powell was hospitalized in 2008 at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, the hospital’s owner and Washington University, whose doctors staff Barnes-Jewish, sued Mr. Powell to recover fees not covered by his insurance carrier that he would not or could not pay. Mr. Powell’s prospects for success are not clear, since Missouri, like most states , does not, at least not explicitly, forbid out-of-network health care providers from billing their patients for the portion of the provider’s fee not covered by insurance.
In 2009, two states, Louisiana and Texas, enacted laws that tackle the problems associated with balance billing not by banning the practice but, among other things, by requiring that the practice be made transparent. The National Conference of Insurance Legislators , the self-described “voice of state legislators in Washington in the face of mounting federal initiatives to preempt state insurance regulation,” has promulgated a draft Balance Billing Disclosure Model Act modeled on the Louisiana and Texas statutes. NCOIL will consider adoption of the Model Act at its next meeting, to be held in March of this year.
Under NCOIL’s draft Model Act, healthcare facilities would be required to provide “conspicuous written disclosure to a consumer at the time the consumer is first treated on a non-emergency basis at the facility, at pre-admission, or first receives non-emergency or post-stabilization services at the facility,” informing the consumer that the facility is either in- or out-of-network and, if the latter, that “the consumer may be billed for medical services for the amount unpaid by the consumer’s health benefit plan.” Health benefit plans would also be required to make disclosures about the potential for balance billing, “in conjunction with issuance or renewal of the plan’s insurance policy or evidence of coverage.” Finally, facility-based healthcare providers would be required to (1) take steps to include sufficient information in their bills to enable patients to understand why they are being balance billed, (2) provide patients with over-the-phone assistance understanding such bills, and (3) work with patients to implement payment plans.
NCOIL received comments on the draft Model Act from a number of stakeholders. The American Hospital Assocation wrote that “[a]n approach focused on disclosure sidesteps the key issue here: the adequacy of the insurer’s network with respect to contracts with facility-based physicians.” Families USA suggested that “[a]s part of requirements that health plans maintain adequate provider networks, health plans should contract with an adequate number of anesthesiologists, emergency room providers, and other facility-based providers to see their members at each in-network facility and should establish reasonable procedures to help both patients and families to identify and locate those participating providers.”
Predictably America’s Health Insurance Plans have a different take, arguing that the most pressing concern is “[p]rotecting consumers from runaway charges billed by some out-of-network providers[.]“ AHIP points out that “[w]hen an individual receives services from a facility and accompanying facility-based practitioners, the consumer rarely has the opportunity to select the radiologist, anesthesiologist or pathologist. Therefore, the proposed disclosure of charges and participating status of the practitioner would have a very limited practical impact because the consumer generally cannot act on this information.”
Tellingly, everyone agrees that disclosure will not be a magic bullet.