Washington, D.C. 鈥� January 18, 2022 鈥� No one should face a surprise medical bill that could lead to financial ruin. In itsin the Eastern District of Texas in Texas Medical Association v. the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 熊猫视频argues in support of HHS鈥� legal arguments for its rules for implementing the No Surprises Act, and that HHS鈥� cross-motion for summary judgment should be granted. Here are the highlights:
Health Insurance Providers Protect Patients from Surprise Medical Bills
鈥淎HIP鈥檚 members strive to reach agreements with health care providers to offer consumers affordable networks that provide them with choices in the delivery of quality medical care. When unable to secure network agreements before treatment is rendered, health insurance providers have long worked to negotiate out-of-network payments to prevent surprise medical bills and reduce costs for patients. This approach was no solution to the growing problem of providers refusing to participate in health insurance networks. Invariably, the result was that out-of-network providers were paid well above typical market rates and consumers faced excessive costs when providers demanded to be paid the balance of unreasonable billed charges.鈥�
HHS鈥� Rules Are Appropriate and Will Protect Americans from Higher Health Care Costs
鈥溞苊ㄊ悠祍trongly supports Congress鈥檚 decision in the No Surprises Act to fix the market dysfunction that saddled patients with exorbitant medical bills for services they had no opportunity to turn down. 熊猫视频 also agrees with Defendants鈥� legal arguments that the Act鈥檚 fix hinges on anchoring disputed out-of-network rates to the 鈥渜ualifying payment amount鈥� (QPA), absent credible information otherwise. The QPA reflects competitive, fair market rates, and Plaintiffs鈥� unbounded alternatives would create the very problems the Act aims to remedy.鈥�
HHS Needed to Act Swiftly for Timely Operationalization of the No Surprises Act
鈥淭o allow for an operational IDR process by January 1, 2022, health plans needed clear guidance. Requiring the IDR process to begin with the QPA, rather than an open-ended multifactor weighing with no structure, provided much-needed certainty. Finalizing the rules allowed health insurance providers to finalize benefit designs; obtain regulatory approvals; set up staffing, systems, and vendor contracts to handle claims and disputes; and, when acting as third-party administrators on behalf of employers that pay for their employees鈥� health care services, accurately predict those employers鈥� anticipated costs, administer their claims, and handle any disputes.鈥�
Before the No Surprises Act, Certain Providers Often Avoided Joining Networks
鈥淔or services where patients are unable to choose an in-network provider in advance, providers lack the same incentives to join networks, resulting in lower network participation rates for certain providers, like those that provide emergency care, or are assigned by the hospital without patient direction, such as anesthesiologists and pathologists.鈥�
Health Insurance Providers Have Every Incentive to Build Robust Networks
鈥淗ealth insurance providers 鈥� have every incentive to move more providers into networks. If network agreements cannot be reached based on reasonable market rates, however, then structured decision-making鈥攚here competitive, negotiated rates like the QPA provide an anchor for resolving disputes鈥攑rotects consumers from premium increases tied to skyrocketing out-of-network charges by ensuring more predictable out-of-network payments.鈥�
熊猫视频Supports HHS鈥� Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
鈥淭he Court should deny Plaintiffs鈥� motion for summary judgment and grant Defendants鈥� cross-motion for summary judgment.鈥�