Lanton Law Quoted in Law360 Article titled "High Court Gives Green Light to Regulate PBMs"

Lanton Law was quoted in law 360’s article titled "High Court Gives Green Light to Regulate PBMs". The article was written by Emily Brill.

For those that have trouble with the link we have provided the story below.

Law360 (December 10, 2020, 10:08 AM EST) -- The U.S. Supreme Court backed an Arkansas law Thursday that bans insurers' affiliates from shortchanging pharmacies, clearing the way for other states to regulate pharmacy benefit managers and throwing a lifeline to small pharmacies that said PBMs' business practices were bankrupting them.

Pharmacies' advocates celebrated Arkansas' 8-0 win as "a historic moment for pharmacies, patients and state's rights," saying the ruling allows states such as New York to move forward with long-discussed plans to regulate the industry that manages insurers' drug components.

The ruling clarifies that PBMs can't use their ties with employee benefit plans to argue that only the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act can regulate their business dealings. ERISA only preempts states' ability to regulate employee benefit plans, leaving states free to oversee PBMs and other members of the health care supply chain, the justices said.

In an opinion authored by Justice Sonya Sotomayor and joined by all the justices except newcomer Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who sat out from considering the case, the court clarified that ERISA won't preempt a regulation simply because it could increase a benefit plan's operating costs. The regulation actually has to affect the way the plan works to trigger ERISA's preemption provision, the court wrote.

"ERISA does not preempt state rate regulations that merely increase costs or alter incentives for ERISA plans without forcing plans to adopt any particular scheme of substantive coverage," Justice Sotomayor wrote.

Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion, saying he favors more of a textualist approach to applying ERISA's preemption provision — Section 1144 of the sprawling law — than his colleagues have applied in the past.

"I write separately because I continue to doubt our ERISA preemption jurisprudence. The plain text of ERISA suggests a two-part preemption test … but our precedents have veered from the text, transforming §1144 into a vague and potentially boundless … preemption clause," Justice Thomas wrote. "That approach … offers little guidance or predictability. We should instead apply the law as written."

The ruling overturns a 2018 decision by the Eighth Circuit, which had held that ERISA preempted Arkansas' Act 900. That law, passed in 2015, forbade PBMs from reimbursing pharmacies for drugs at rates below the drugs' acquisition costs. Arkansas passed it in response to community pharmacies' complaints that PBMs were reimbursing them less than they were shelling out to purchase drugs, while reimbursing PBM-affiliated pharmacies at significantly higher rates.

The win is significant for states, which had banded together in a bipartisan coalition to back Arkansas' position in the case. Forty-seven attorneys general told the high court in the spring that preserving states' ability to regulate PBMs was essential for curbing harmful business practices in health care and protecting consumers' access to medication. Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge called the ruling "a win for all Arkansans and Americans."

The ruling also hands a victory to local pharmacists, who say PBMs' practice of shortchanging them on drug reimbursements while overpaying PBM-affiliated pharmacies has threatened to put them out of business. The National Community Pharmacists Association cheered the high court's decision Thursday, saying it was thrilled that the Supreme Court had greenlit states to clamp down on that practice.

"This is a historic victory for independent pharmacies and their patients. And it confirms the rights of states to enact reasonable regulations in the name of fair competition and public health," said National Community Pharmacists Association CEO B. Douglas Hoey, who is a pharmacist himself.

The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, the PBM industry lobbying group that sued over Act 900, said Thursday that it was disappointed in a decision that it claimed would "result in the unraveling of federal protections under ERISA."

"As states across the country consider this outcome, we would encourage they proceed with caution and avoid any regulations around prescription drug benefits that will result in higher health care costs for consumers and employers," the group said in a statement.

Attorneys said the decision provides much-needed clarity on the scope of ERISA's preemption provision. The ruling preserves Section 1144's broad reach in the context of benefit plan legislation but establishes that preemption can't be wielded as a weapon to knock out regulation of "middlemen somewhere in the [health care] supply chain," as James Gelfand, senior vice president of health policy at the ERISA Industry Committee, put it.

"For far too long, the PBM industry has confused both legislators and regulators with overly broad interpretations of ERISA in order to dodge oversight," said health care attorney Ron Lanton. "We have been arguing for years that ERISA should not be interpreted to where it would be virtually impossible to regulate PBMs."

Linda Clark, a health care attorney and partner at Barclay Damon LLP, seconded that notion. "The fact you have a tangential relationship with entities that are regulated by ERISA doesn't make you completely immune from state regulation of anything you do," she said, adding that PBMs need to be regulated to prevent them from "employ[ing] even more draconian practices in management of their pharmacy networks."

Michael Klenov, a benefits attorney and partner at Korein Tillery, said Thursday that the ruling will likely discourage challenges to other states' attempts to regulate PBMs. But "it may also embolden states to push the boundaries of health care-related legislation further, thus leading to new challenges that will test where the courts draw the preemption boundaries," he said.

The federal government, which weighed in as an amicus in support of Arkansas, did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.

Arkansas is represented by Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, Nicholas Jacob Bronni and Shawn J. Johnson of the Arkansas Attorney General's Office.

The federal government is represented by Kate O'Scannlain, G. William Scott, Thomas Tso, Wayne Berry and Stephanie Bitto of the U.S. Department of Labor and by Edwin Kneedler and Frederick Liu of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association is represented by Michael B. Kimberly, Sarah P. Hogarth and Matthew Waring of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and by Seth P. Waxman, Catherine M.A. Carroll, Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Justin Baxenberg, Claire H. Chung and Hillary S. Smith of WilmerHale.

The case is Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, case number 18-540, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

--Editing by John Oudens and Haylee Pearl.

Update: This article has been updated with additional comments and more information about the case.

Lanton Law quoted in Bloomberg Law Article

We were quoted in Bloomberg Law’s article titled “States Risk Losing Power to Regulate Pharmacy Drug Middlemen” by Lydia Wheeler. The article discusses the pros and cons of Rutledge v. PCMA, which is currently being debated at the Supreme Court.

For those that have trouble accessing the article we have provided it below.

States are going to have a hard time controlling the cost of prescription drugs if the Supreme Court broadens a federal law prohibiting states from regulating employee benefit plans.

A challenge to an Arkansas law meant to protect independent pharmacies from abusive reimbursement practices of rate-setting pharmacy middlemen is testing the bounds of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. A decision striking down Arkansas’s law could cripple state efforts to control the cost of prescription drugs and other health-care services. That could lead to a flood of litigation challenging dozens of similar laws in other states, health policy experts say.

“This is really the tip of the iceberg because states are trying to control drug costs in all kinds of different ways,” said Katherine Gudiksen, a senior health policy researcher at the Source on Healthcare Price and Competition, a project of the University of California Hastings College of Law.

The case could be one of the first decided by the Supreme Court this term. Arguments were heard Oct. 6.

Drawing the Line 

Arkansas’s fighting to save its law, which regulates the rates at which pharmacy benefit managers reimburse pharmacies for drugs and gives pharmacies a right to appeal the rates they set.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held the law was preempted by ERISA, which prohibits states from passing laws that reference an ERISA plan or have an impermissible connection to an ERISA plan. But Arkansas argues pharmacy reimbursement regulation is basic rate regulation, which the Supreme Court has ruled isn’t preempted by ERISA.

“It’s hard to see how a law that directly affects benefits claims processing isn’t central to ERISA plan administration,” said Stacey Cerrone, a principal in the New Orleans office of Jackson Lewis PC.

“The court is struggling on where to draw the line with preemption,” she said.

Patchwork of State Laws

A win for Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA)—the trade group for PBMs that’s aggressively fighting this law and others—would likely open the door for more legal challenges. Laws regulating PBMs have passed in 36 states.

“There’s no agency that oversees federally a pharmacy benefit manager,” said Ron Lanton, principal at Lanton Law, which helped lobby for some state PBM laws. “That’s the problem, so the states have had to come up with their own solution on how to regulate this problem.”

But PCMA argues Congress set out to create a uniform set of standards in administering ERISA plans, which include most private sector health plans. The trade group said employers will have to spend more money on administrative services and compliance, increasing the cost of care, if laws like the one in Arkansas remain.

“More than 266 million Americans rely on the prescription drug benefits PBMs administer, and now more than ever we’re committed to protecting accessible, affordable health care,” JC Scott, PCMA’s president and CEO, said in a statement after oral arguments in October.

In addition to Arkansas, PCMA has challenged laws in North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Iowa in recent years.

The trade group has been successful in winning challenges in the Eighth Circuit. The appeals court ruled Iowa’s law and two North Dakota lawsare preempted by ERISA. Iowa’s law regulates how PBMs establish generic drug pricing, and requires certain disclosures on their drug pricing methodology. North Dakota’s laws regulate the fees PBMs can charge pharmacies. North Dakota officials have appealed the court’s decision to the Supreme Court.

In July, a federal judge blocked part of Oklahoma’s law. PCMA filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which it later had dismissed. The case is still playing out in the district court.

Lanton, who represents independent pharmacies, said his clients hope the Supreme Court provides some uniformity to what’s become a patchwork of state laws. He’s also hoping for a clear definition of what a pharmacy benefit manager is and isn’t.

“It comes down to this split in the court of whether or not the court sees a pharmacy benefit manager as an insurer that provides benefits or as an administrator that simply regulates reimbursement and cost.”

Market Power 

The three largest PBM companies are OptumRx, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group; CVS Caremark, a subsidiary of CVS Health; and Express Scripts, a subsidiary of Cigna Corp. They control 85% of the market share for PBM services, according to the National Association of Specialty Pharmacy’s brief in support of Arkansas.

That market power gives health plans very little bargaining power, said Erin Fuse Brown, director of the Center for Law, Health and Society at Georgia State University College of Law.

PBMs say they use their size and power to negotiate discounts with the pharmaceutical manufacturers, but it’s not clear they’re passing along those savings to the health plans, she said.

The case is Rutledge v. Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass’n, U.S., No. 18-540.

To contact the reporter on this story: Lydia Wheeler in Washington at lwheeler@bloomberglaw.com

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Fawn Johnson at fjohnson@bloombergindustry.com; Brent Bierman at bbierman@bloomberglaw.com

Where Do Biden & Trump Stand On The Issues?

With election season underway many are wondering where the two Presidential candidates stand on the issues of importance to voters.

Reuters did a great summary found here that explains the major differences from the economy, trade, healthcare, etc.

The winner of this election will certainly have policies affecting your interests. Whether you are in technology, healthcare/lifesciences or finance, it is important to know what your organization’s priorities are and to have a plan for either candidate should they win.

Lanton Strategies; a division of Lanton Law is a is a full service federal and state lobbying and government affairs firm that has a menu of services to help you achieve your goals.

Contact us today to get started in understanding your range of options as the new legislative session approaches.

New White House Drug Pricing Executive Order Released

On September 13, 2020, the Trump Administration released a new Executive Order (EO)  targeting drug pricing. The EO directs the Secretary of HHS to implement a “Most Favored Nation” drug pricing program for Medicare Parts B and D. This policy relies on international price competition and seeks to provide Americans with the same lower prices for prescriptions that we see in other countries.

Drug pricing has been a major point of contention as manufacturers and insurer/pharmacy benefit managers exchange blame over why drug prices are rising. Drug pricing has been a major issue that had been getting Congressional scrutiny until COVID-19. 

This issue will come back once a COVID-19 vaccine is available as there may be questions around the vaccine’s price. Additionally, once COVID-19 dies down, drug pricing for new therapies is expected to be front and center again.

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and government affairs firm that focuses on healthcare and technology. If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today!

Lanton Law Newsletter is Out

We have released our August newsletter. This month we discuss our presentations at the National Association of Specialty Pharmacy, the new Executive Order aimed at PBMs, our recent Blogcast with Ken Kaitin, Professor and Director at the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, the new LTC Congressional pharmacy bill and our interview with Pharmacy Times on Rutledge v. PCMA. Click here to view it.

Lanton Law Speaks with Pharmacy Times about U.S. Supreme Court Case Rutledge v. PCMA & Its Implication on Pharmacy Policy

Lanton Law was interviewed by Pharmacy Times on the implications of the October 6, 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case of Rutledge v. PCMA. This case has major consequences for future PBM policies. Click here to access the interview.

New Executive Order Aimed at Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs)

The White House has released an Executive Order titled “Executive Order on Lowering Prices for Patients by Eliminating Kickbacks to Middlemen.” 

“One of the reasons pharmaceutical drug prices in the United States are so high is because of the complex mix of payers and negotiators that often separates the consumer from the manufacturer in the drug-purchasing process.  The result is that the prices patients see at the point-of-sale do not reflect the prices that the patient’s insurance companies, and middlemen hired by the insurance companies, actually pay for drugs.  Instead, these middlemen — health plan sponsors and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) — negotiate significant discounts off of the list prices, sometimes up to 50 percent of the cost of the drug.” 

This Executive Order advocates for HHS to complete its prior January 2019 proposed rule aimed at “revising the discount safe harbor to explicitly exclude from the definition of a discount eligible for safe harbor protection certain reductions in price or other remuneration from a manufacturer of prescription pharmaceutical products to plan sponsors under Medicare Part D, Medicaid managed care organizations as defined under section 1903(m) of the Act (Medicaid MCOs), or pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) under contract with them.”  

Not only does this Executive Order state that discounts offered on prescription drugs should be passed on to patients, but that HHS must confirm publicly prior to finalizing its proposed rule that “that the action is not projected to increase Federal spending, Medicare beneficiary premiums, or patients’ total out-of-pocket costs.”

Lanton Law is a national boutique law and government affairs firm that focuses on healthcare/life sciences, technology and finance. If you are an industry stakeholder with questions about the current landscape or if you would like to discuss how your organization’s strategic initiatives might be impacted by either Congress, regulatory agencies or legal decisions, contact us today. 

Election May Determine Pace of Biosimilar Legislation

We have a new article out with the Center for Biosimilars titled “Election May Determine Pace of Biosimilar Legislation.” The article can be viewed here.

If you are having difficulty accessing the article, we have provided it below:

By the end of 2019, 26 biosimilar products had been launched in the United States. As 2020 gets underway, there are several pending legislative proposals designed to encourage more commercialization of these cost-saving drugs.

House Legislation

HR 3: Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act
Many parts of this legislation could indirectly affect biosimilars. Two proposals of note would directly change drug costs for biosimilars if the law is passed.

The first proposal would require the HHS secretary to add a new set of measures to the 5-star rating system under Medicare in order to encourage increased access to biosimilar biological products. Specifically, the proposed legislation calls for determining whether a biosimilar is on formulary and whether and how utilization management tools are applied with respect to a biosimilar. The bill also calls for determination of the percentage of enrollees prescribed the biosimilar product when the reference biologic is also available.

The second proposal would temporarily increase the amount Medicare Part B pays for biosimilars for 5 years. This means that Medicare would pay the average sales price (ASP) plus 8% rather than plus 6%. The product would have to meet certain pricing criteria in order to qualify.

Both proposals may increase the utilization of biosimilars. The star rating system currently used does not make a distinction for biosimilars and allows payers to use the same policies for biosimilars and brands as they do for generics and brands. This can mean that a specialty pharmacy that dispenses under Part B does not get the same credit as a pharmacy that dispenses for Part D. Establishing new guidelines for the star rating system can help specialty pharmacy use more biosimilars and get credit toward its ratings with the payer.

An ASP increase of 2 percentage points could help cover additional costs for specialty pharmacy for educating consumers about biosimilar utilization.

This bill has passed the full House and has yet to be taken up by the Senate.

HR 4597: Acting to Cancel Copays and Ensure Substantial Savings for Biosimilars (ACCESS) Act
This bill would eliminate a patient’s copay for a biosimilar under Medicare Part B. The bill would drive down medical costs by increasing access to lower-cost biosimilar drugs and give Americans more treatment options. This bill has been referred to the Subcommittee on Health in the House.

HR 2375: Preserve Access to Affordable Generics and Biosimilars Act
This would prohibit prescription drug companies from compensating other prescription drug companies to delay the market entry of a generic drug, biosimilar biological product, or interchangeable biological product. This would basically make “pay for delay” in patent settlements illegal. This legislation has cleared the Judiciary Committee and is pending in the House.

Senate Legislation

S 1416: Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act of 2019
Originally, this legislation was aimed at allowing the Federal Trade Commission antitrust enforcement powers to sue manufacturers who use patent thickets to block generic and biosimilar products from launching. Since its introduction, the bill’s main sponsor, Sen John Cornyn, R-Texas, has stated that he is redesigning the bill to shift the enforcement power to the FDA instead of the FTC. As currently modified, the bill addresses anticompetitive practices involving manipulation of the availability of reference drugs. There is other patent thicket legislation proposed, which would be stricter than S 1416, but it is unknown when this would come to a vote in the Senate.

With the election season well underway, it remains to be seen whether any of these bills will advance before the year’s end.

Legislation to Play Significant Role in Drug Pricing Across Specialty Pharmacy

Jennifer Nessel of Pharmacy Times has featured Lanton Law in an article titled “Legislation to Play Significant Role in Drug Pricing Across Specialty Pharmacy.” The article can be read here. In case you have difficulty reading the article, we have featured it below. This article appeared in Pharmacy Times on 2/17/20.

As utilization and drug spending continue to rise, health care providers are looking to resolve key questions that address drug pricing and biosimilar implementation in specialty pharmacy.

Hospital and health systems saw nearly 20% growth in the specialty drug market in 2018, according to Becker’s Hospital Review.2 The diversity of specialty pharmacies has resulted in variability across all operational areas, including tracking adherence, educating patients, dispensing medications, and ensuring drug safety.3

However, although the specialty industry has had a positive impact on health systems’ quality and continuity of care initiatives, the administration of specialty drugs is challenging and highly complex given the number of new therapies and payer requirements.

According to Ron Lanton, III, Esq, principal of Lanton Law and biologics committee chair of the New York State Bar Association, policymakers on the federal level understand that the issue of drug pricing needs to be resolved but they are having a hard time coming to an agreement on how this reform should be done.

The Drug Price Conundrum
Due to the fact that the legislative session has recently begun in many states and in Congress and that it is an election year, it is difficult to determine whether there will be a unifying drug-legislative solution for drug prices.

However, California’s Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) has recently proposed that California become the first US state to manufacture its own generic prescription label, with a goal of making affordable medications available to the state’s almost 40 million residents. However, the governor’s proposal has yet to pass the California legislature.

According to Lanton, a manufacturer could leverage its influence over smaller states to stop legislation such as Governor Newsom’s from advancing. However, due to its size and the fact that its policies may influence other state legislatures, California may be a harder market for a manufacturer to confront.

“I [have to] question as to whether California’s efforts would further drive down an already deflated generic drug market and whether California would be able to determine how much it will charge for generics once manufacturing costs, such as raw materials, are concerned. Not to mention how much this is going to cost since that remains unknown at this point in time,” Lanton explained to Directions in Specialty PharmacyTM.  

Although the proposal marks the first state-wide attempt to lower prescription drug prices, there have been attempts within federal legislation to corral drug prices. The Trump administration recently attempted to lower drug costs through its Blueprint to Lower Drug Costs, and the FDA has recently been an advocate for greater generic and biosimilar utilization.

“To date, there has been no silver bullet to deal with rising prescription drug costs. Notwithstanding whether I agree with this plan, I applaud California in trying to solve a problem that refuses to go away quietly,” Lanton said.

Biosimilar Implementation
Specialty drugs, with nearly 700 therapies currently under development for treatment areas such as cancer, hepatitis C virus, HIV, autoimmune disorders, and multiple sclerosis, are expected to claim 9 of the top 10 spots among bestselling drugs in 2020.3 Although specialty drugs have been hallmarked as important treatment options for patients with cancer or other complex diseases, there can be issues surrounding access and affordability.

The cost of specialty medications and the increased adoption of high-deductible health plans have placed a higher financial burden on patients. As out-of-pocket costs increase, including insurance denials, patients are more likely to abandon their treatment plans.4

Biosimilars are potentially more affordable specialty medications for patients with complex disease states. According to Managed Health Executive, biosimilars could bring approximately $250 billion in savings by 2024.3

Pending legislation may have a large impact on biosimilar implementation across the specialty pharmacy landscape. There are several bills that Lanton singled out for the 2020 year1:
 

• HR 4597 Acting to Cancel Co-pays and Ensure Substantial Savings for Biosimilars (ACCESS) Act would eliminate a patient’s co-pay for a biosimilar if they normally would pay full cost of a biologic drug under Medicare Part B. The bill seeks to drive down medical costs by increasing access to lower-cost biosimilar drugs and give Americans more treatment options.

• HR 4629 Star Rating for Biosimilar Act would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to add a new set of measures to the 5-star rating system under the Medicare Advantage program in order to encourage increased access to biosimilar biological products.

• HR 4913 would require Medicare prescription drug plan (PDP) formularies to include covered generic drugs and biosimilars for which the wholesale acquisition cost is less than that of the reference (ie, brand-name) product. PDP sponsors must also establish specific cost-sharing tiers that apply lower cost-sharing requirements for such covered generic drugs and biosimilars as compared to those for brand-name products. The bill also prohibits PDP sponsors from instituting certain requirements relating to access to such covered generic drugs and biosimilars that are more restrictive than those for brand-name products (eg, prior authorization requirements).

• HR 2375 would prohibit prescription drug companies from compensating other prescription drug companies to delay the entry of a generic drug, biosimilar biological product, or interchangeable biological product into the market.

• S 1681 proposes to educate health care providers and the public on biosimilar biological products. Under this bill, the Secretary shall establish, maintain, and operate a website consisting of educational materials regarding the meaning and use of biosimilar biological products and interchangeable biological products.

Affordable Care Act (ACA) Transition 
On March 23, 2020, the life sciences industry will undergo “the transition,” according to Lanton. Currently, the FDA has and will continue to regulate biologics, but historically the agency regulated biologics as drugs under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act instead of as products licensed under the Public Health Service (PHS) Act.

“In order to bring all biologics under the same legal and regulatory system, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 found in the ACA included the ‘Deemed to be a License’ provision,” Lanton said.

This meant that 10 years after enactment, on March 23, 2020, applicable biologics will automatically be deemed biologics licensed under the PHS Act. Unfortunately, the statute did not provide instructions to the FDA on how to do this, meaning the agency will decide on which products transition and how, according to Lanton.

“This basically means no more new drug applications or abbreviated new drug applications for select biologics, only biologic license applications of the 351(a) and 351(k) varieties. Also, not only will they be categorized as biologic[s], but they will be subject to the biosimilar, not generic competition. Specifically, drugs [to] be transitioned are insulins and other naturally occurring proteins, such as hyaluronidase, human growth hormones, and menotropins,” Lanton said.

Reference

1. Lanton, Ron, III, Esq. Interview with Pharmacy Times [email]. Accessed February 11, 2020.

2. 5 Trends Health System Pharmacies Can Expect in 2020. Becker’s Hospital Review. Published December 9, 2020. https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/5-trends-health-system-pharmacies-can-expect-in-2020.html. Accessed February 12, 2020.

3. Biologics Build Oncology Drug Pipeline. Managed Healthcare Executive. Published November 1, 2019. https://www.managedhealthcareexecutive.com/news/biologics-build-oncology-drug-pipeline. Accessed February 12, 2020.

4. Galante, Dominic. Accreditation Explosion Among Top Specialty Pharmacy Trends. J Clin Pathways. 2018;4(7):35-38. doi:10.25270/JCP.2018.09.00037. Accessed February 12, 2020.

Surprise Medical Billing: What is it and what’s being done to stop it?

Surprise medical billing is an issue that has been widespread for a while, but due to social media and more intense scrutiny, we are now seeing the effects of how common this problem is among patients accessing our healthcare system. According to a study by Kaiser “roughly 1 of every 6 emergency room visits and inpatient hospital stays in 2017, patients came home with at least one out-of-network medical bill.” The question is what is surprise medical billing?

Surprise medical bills generally have two components. The first component is the higher amount the patient owes under her health plan, reflecting the difference in cost-sharing levels between in-network and out-of-network services. 

The second component of surprise medical bills is an additional amount the physician or other provider may bill the patient directly, a practice known as “balance billing.” Typically, health plans negotiate discounted charges with network providers and require them to accept the negotiated fee as payment-in-full. Network providers are prohibited from billing plan enrollees the difference (or balance) between the allowed charge and the full charge. Out-of-network providers, however, have no such contractual obligation. As a result, patients can be liable for the balance bill in addition to any applicable out-of-network cost sharing.

To illustrate a patient can find his or herself in a situation where the patient needs emergency care but cannot select the emergency room or the ambulance provider in a certain situation. Another instance is where a patient knowingly goes to an in-network hospital to receive surgery but does not know that an anesthesiologist is an out of network provider.   

So what’s being done about this? 

The Administration:

Last May, the Administration released a fact sheet on medical billing that advocated for the following: 

• In emergency situations, balance billing for amounts above the in-network allowed amount should be prohibited.

• Before scheduling their care, patients should be given information about whether the care providers are out of their network and what related costs that may bring.

Congress:

In Congress there have been bills this session to combat surprise medical billing, but these solutions have differing philosophical approaches. For example one method calls on the use of arbitration, where an insurer and a provider would advance a proposed payment rate for the service provided to the patient and then an independent arbiter would adjudicate a fair price. On the other hand insurers have been advocating for benchmark payment rates as a solution to surprise medical billing where benchmark payment rates would ensure that providers are paid a standard rate for out-of-network services provided.

H.R. 3630: This bill sponsored by Rep. Pallone (D-NJ) expands restrictions on charging health care plan holders out-of-network rates for certain services. First, the bill requires insurers offering plans that cover emergency services to bill plan holders no more than the median in-network rate for a particular emergency service, even if the service provider is out of network. The bill further prohibits insurers from billing plan holders more than the median in-network rate for nonemergency services provided by out-of-network providers at in-network facilities. Out-of-network providers may not bill plan holders for the difference between the in-network and out-of-network rates for emergency services. The bill further prohibits out-of-network providers from billing plan holders for the difference in rates for nonemergency services provided at an in-network facility unless the provider complies with specified notice and consent requirements. 

S. 1895: This bill sponsored by Senator Alexander (R-TN) applies in-network cost-sharing requirements to certain emergency and related nonemergency services that are provided out-of-network, and prohibits health care facilities and practitioners from billing above the applicable in-network cost-sharing rate for such services. Additionally, it requires health care facilities and practitioners to give patients a list of provided services upon discharge and to bill for such services within 45 days.

Most recently, two U.S. House Committees have moved forward with additional possible solutions to this issue. The U.S. House Ways and Means Committee released a surprise billing plan, that calls for a dispute resolution process between the insurer and the provider. This bill does not address patients who are billed for air ambulance rides but does require providers to share cost data and insurers to share claims data to the Department of Health and Human Services. If enacted this language would be effective in 2022. 

The U.S. House Education and Labor Committee has released its proposal that is similar with what the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) proposed in December 2019, where insurers would pay out-of-network providers the median in-network rate for that geographic area for amounts up to $750. For larger amounts, either side could request an arbitration process. When a patient receives a surprise bill from an air ambulance provider, the threshold would be $25,000. Both House committees plan to discuss their respective bills this week. 

State Legislative Protections:

States have created their own but varied approaches to surprise medical billing. According to an analysis by The Commonwealth Fund, 28 states have enacted laws to protect enrollees against this issue. Last year Colorado, Nevada, Texas and Washington State passed enhanced or new surprise medical billing laws.   

Conclusion

In conclusion, this issue will continue to be debated in the states until there is a federal solution. With this being an election year, it is uncertain as to whether this issue will pass Congress. While this issue can be a bi-partisan victory for patients nationwide, it is also questionable as to whether either the Democrats or Republicans are willing to give the other side a share in a political victory during the crucial 2020 election season.