“The bill would relieve patients from having to pay surprise medical bills out of pocket by requiring insurers to reimburse out-of-network doctors and other health providers a “fair amount” and doctors to accept the payments, said its author, Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Oakland).”
“That rate would be 125 percent of the amount Medicare pays for the same service or the insurer’s average contracted rate for the service, whichever is greater.”
Editor’s Note: If California passes this bill into law (very likely), Reference Based Pricing in California will take off in the private sector. No network plans, similar to what we have implemented in Texas since 2007, will have solved the problem of balance billing risk. And if Texas passes a similar law TPA’s like Caprock Health Plans and Continental Benefits, both of which administer Reference Based Pricing plans will achieve new business sales that will make Ben Feldman look like an amateur.
Contributed by Chris Britton, Caddo Associates – www.caddoassociates.com
By Ana B. Ibarra | California Healthline | August 30, 2016 10:05 am
A measure to protect California consumers from surprise medical bills — among the longest-debated issues to be considered by state lawmakers — moved closer than it’s ever been to becoming law when the Senate approved it Monday with a 35-1 vote.
The bill would relieve patients from having to pay surprise medical bills out of pocket by requiring insurers to reimburse out-of-network doctors and other health providers a “fair amount” and doctors to accept the payments, said its author, Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Oakland).
That rate would be 125 percent of the amount Medicare pays for the same service or the insurer’s average contracted rate for the service, whichever is greater.
The bill still faces additional review before Wednesday, the deadline for passage by the legislature, but its supporters expect it to be sent to the governor for signature.
Surprise medical bills can happen when patients at a hospital or other facility considered in-network by their insurance receive care from a provider who does not contract with the insurer and is considered out-of-network. Since the doctors have no contract with the insurers, they can bill the patients for the full cost of the care. These surprise bills commonly come from radiologists, anesthesiologists or pathologists, specialists likely not chosen by the patient or ones the patient may not even realize has been involved in the care.
Some doctors have chosen to not contract with insurers to allow themselves to command their own higher rates. However, if this legislation passes, providers will be forced to cooperate with insurers and agree upon rates, said Andrea Caballero, program director of the San Francisco nonprofit Catalyst for Payment Reform.
“Because contracted rates are usually higher than Medicare rates, it is hard to say whether the Medicare benchmark will kick in,” Caballero said.
A similar bill last year required that out-of-network providers be reimbursed 100 percent of the amount Medicare pays for a service, but it stalled in the Assembly.
This bill represents a more balanced approach, said Sen. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina), another of the bill’s sponsors. “This is a more generous payment standard for non-contracting providers.”
But “more generous” depends on whom you ask. Sen. Joel Anderson (R-Alpine), who voted against the bill, said compensation to out-of-network providers could be improved.
“This bill is much closer to a true balance,” Anderson said, “but my problem is, if we don’t compensate [doctors] for all their effort, they won’t do the job. No one is going to work for free.”
Similar measures are being looked at in several other states. Florida recently passed a law exempting patients from having to pay the surprise bills.
Bonta’s bill specifically addresses medical bills only for non-emergency services. Billing patients for emergency care costs that insurers don’t cover is prohibited under state law.
The fight against surprise medical bills has been going on for 16 years, Hernandez said. This bill is the most promising solution thus far, he said.
The bill would also establish an independent dispute process in which doctors can make their case for higher payment.
The bill is significant because it takes the patient out of the middle of the payment dispute between doctors and insurers, consumer advocates say.
“This bill will give consumers some of the strongest protections against surprise out-of-network medical bills in the nation, while ensuring providers are paid fairly,” said Anthony Wright, executive director at Health Access, a Sacramento-based health care advocacy group. “Patients who go to in-network hospitals would only be responsible for in-network cost sharing for all the care they receive.”
Write RiskManager@RiskManagers.us
FROM A TEXAS PHYSICIAN
Balance billing is a very significant issue that is going to get a lot of attention in the Texas Legislature this session. Physicians have a genuine concern (not unfounded) that a “bad” balance bill could end up impairing their ability to negotiate with the MCO’s. I am very sympathetic. Carriers have for years created narrow networks, using two questions to qualify physicians for admittance: (1) will you take a discount (or our ridiculously low fee); and (2) have you ever been in jail? If Yes to (1), and no to (2), you’re in the network. I’m only being mildly facetious. Their issue is and always will be money, and they really don’t give two hoots about any quality.
There is evidence that the crux of the balance bill problem is inadequate networks – that is, a supply of physicians in certain specialties – hospital based in particular. Yes, there are examples out there of outrageous billed charges by some of these groups (our friends in the FSER’s are the main perpetrators of this ruse), and they should be excluded. But restrictions on physicians’ ability to set their rates b/c of an artificial benchmark (125%) is not the answer. I will not support such a thing.