Under New Jersey's final-offer arbitration system, median arbitration award was 5.7 times median in-network price. Researchers say use of billed charges leads to high awards.
When the Congress finally passed legislation to end surprise billing in December, it settled on a final-offer arbitration process for settling cases when providers and health plans can’t agree on amount to be paid for an out-of-network service. Final-offer arbitration, which is used to settle pay disputes in major league baseball and by certain unions and employers, means the arbitrator must select the amount proposed by the provider or health plan; there’s no compromising on a middle amount.
States have also set up final-offer arbitration for settling surprising billing disputes. In this month’s issue of Health Affairs researchers reported the results of a study of New Jersey’s final-arbitration system that showed the median arbitration award in 2019 was 5.7 times higher than the median in-network price for the same procedure. Even when health plans won the arbitration, they paid, at the median, 1.76 times the median in-network price.
Benjamin Chartock
Moreover, Benjamin Chartock, an associate fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at the University of Pennsylvania, and his colleagues found that 85 (5%) of the 1,695 cases in their study had awards that were 25 times the median in-network price and nine cases settled at prices that more than 100 times the median in-network price. They found that 82 of the 85 awards that were 25 times larger than the median in-network price were cases when the provider’s final bid was picked by the arbitrator and that most (72) of those cases were from plastic surgeons, general surgeons or orthopedists.
Chartock and his colleagues note that arbitrators in New Jersey are shown and instructed to consider amounts that are the 80th percentile of billed charges and that they found evidence that the 80th percentile level “may have served as a strong guidepost for arbitration decisions.” They noted the mean arbitration decision in New Jersey was 107% of the 80th percentile of billed charges.
One of the major policy debates about eliminating surprise billing and settling disputed bills is whether to use arbitration (which is generally favored by providers) to settle the disputed bills or to use a benchmark instead that would be tied to, say, a percentage of the Medicare rate.
Chartock et al. say regardless of whether the method to resolve disputes is arbitration or some kind of benchmark, federal and state policy makers “should recognize that any reliance on any reliance on provider charges, either to define an out-of-network benchmark or as guidance given to arbitrators for consideration can induce perverse incentives that maybe harmful to the market.” In their conclusion they amplify on the point: “Arbitrators should be prohibited from considering provider charges, which are unilaterally set, are largely untethered by market forces, and tend to be extremely high.” Instead, they said arbitrators should look to commercial in-network prices and Medicare payments for guidance.
Under the New Jersey surprise billing law, insurers make payments to providers and the patients are not supposed to pay more in cost-sharing amounts that they would if they had been cared for by an in-network provider. Arbitration is triggered if the difference between the insurer’s payment and the provider’s bill is more than $1,000.
Bridging the Diversity Gap in Rare Disease Clinical Trials with Harsha Rajasimha of IndoUSrare
November 8th 2023Briana Contreras, an editor with Managed Healthcare Executive, spoke with Harsha Rajasimha, MD, founder and executive chairman of IndoUSrare, in this month's episode of Tuning in to the C-Suite podcast. The conversation was about how the disparity in diversity and ethnicity in rare disease clinical trials in the U.S. has led to gaps in understanding diseases and conditions, jeopardizing universal health, and increasing the economic burden of healthcare.
Listen
Managing Editor of Managed Healthcare Executive, Peter Wehrwein, had a discussion with William Shrank, M.D., a venture partner with Andreessen Horowitz, a venture capital firm in Menlo Park, California, about how artificial intelligence's role is improving healthcare, where we are today with value-based care and the ongoing efforts of reducing waste in the healthcare space for this episode of the "What's on Your Mind" podcast series.
Listen
Air Pollution May Negatively Affect Male Reproductive Health
November 30th 2023A potential mechanism by which air pollutants may affect reproductive health is by endocrine disruption. Air pollutants are made up of mixtures of particulate matter that may include endocrine disruptors, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals.
Read More
35th World AIDS Day Marks 20 Years of PEPFAR: Challenges and Strategies to Combat HIV/AIDS
November 29th 2023PEPFAR, having invested $100 billion and saved 25 million lives in the global fight against HIV/AIDS, faces Congressional hurdles in its reauthorization due to abortion debates. Despite widespread support and no evidence of abortion-related activities, the legislative process is at a standstill. Members of PEPFAR and authors of a recent editorial stress the significance of PEPFAR and advocate for integrating behavioral and social science into healthcare programs to achieve UNAIDS targets and address barriers in HIV/AIDS testing and treatment.
Read More