Tag: No Surprises Act

No Surprises Act: Exploring the Impact on Employees, Employers and Costs

Posted by

On March 7, CHIR hosted the second event in a series of policy briefings on the future of employer-sponsored health insurance, sponsored by Arnold Ventures. This event, featuring remarks from Congressman “Bobby” Scott and a panel discussion moderated by Julie Appleby of KFF Health News, focused on the No Surprises Act’s impact on consumers and implementation challenges associated with the independent dispute resolution process.

Report Shows Dispute Resolution Process in No Surprises Act Favors Providers

Posted by

Last month, the Biden administration reported on independent dispute resolution (IDR) cases resolved under the No Surprises Act in the first half of 2023. In a new post for the Commonwealth Fund, CHIR’s Jack Hoadley and Kevin Lucia analyze the IDR data and what it means for patients, providers, payers, and health care costs.

Implementing the No Surprises Act: What We Know from Early Complaint Data

Posted by

The No Surprises Act (NSA) provides comprehensive protections from many of the most prevalent forms of surprise medical billing, and a new process for determining out-of-network provider reimbursement aims to control health care costs by limiting insurer payments for surprise bills. It remains to be seen if the new federal law—implemented only last year—will achieve these goals. Two recently released reports provide some of the first indicators of the NSA’s impact.

Surprise Billing: Volume Of Cases Using Independent Dispute Resolution Continues Higher Than Anticipated

Posted by

The No Surprises Act is largely working as intended to protect patients from unexpected medical bills. However, the rising number of Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) cases is creating challenges for the health care system. In a post for Health Affairs Forefront, Jack Hoadley and Kevin Lucia evaluate the causes and implications of the increasing number of IDR cases.

Providers Challenge Payments In ‘No Surprises’ Act Dispute Resolution Process

Posted by

Under the No Surprises Act, consumers are held harmless beyond in-network cost sharing when they receive certain kinds of out-of-network care. In these scenarios, to determine the provider’s payment, payers and providers may enter independent dispute resolution (IDR). Recently, federal agencies released an initial report on the No Surprises Act’s IDR process. In a post for Health Affairs Forefront, CHIR experts Jack Hoadley and Kevin Lucia analyze the new report and discuss what it suggests about the No Surprises Act.

January Research Roundup: What We’re Reading

Posted by

Welcome to another year of health policy research. In the first month of 2023, CHIR reviewed studies on how policies expanding health coverage would impact household spending, surprise medical bills generated by ground ambulance rides, and health care costs associated with substance use disorders.

As Ground Ambulance Committee Begins Its Work, New Report on Balance Billing by Ground Ambulance Providers Highlights a Gap in the No Surprises Act

Posted by

On December 9, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced the membership of the Advisory Committee on Ground Ambulance and Patient Billing, as required by the No Surprises Act (NSA). As the committee prepares to begin its work, there is new evidence out of Texas that the NSA’s exclusion of ground ambulance bills puts consumers at a significant financial risk when they need emergency medical transport.

September Research Roundup: What We’re Reading

Posted by

It’s officially fall, and along with the new season came an autumnal bounty of new health policy research. This month, we reviewed studies on the connection between medical debt and social determinants of health, private equity acquisition of physician practices, and controlling health care costs through state surprise billing laws.

The No Surprises Act Final Rule: Implications for State Regulators

Posted by

The Biden administration has published its final rules governing the independent dispute resolution process outlined in the No Surprises Act. In a new Expert Perspective for the State Health & Value Strategies project, CHIR’s Jack Hoadley, Kevin Lucia, and JoAnn Volk review the rule and its implications for state regulators.

The opinions expressed here are solely those of the individual blog post authors and do not represent the views of Georgetown University, the Center on Health Insurance Reforms, any organization that the author is affiliated with, or the opinions of any other author who publishes on this blog.