No Surprises Act Arbitration Process Is A ‘Big Mess,’ Senate Tells HHS At Hearing

Volume of disputed claims, legal rulings creating obstacles for No  Surprises Act | BenefitsPRO

The arbitration process in the No Surprises Act, which was enacted to make the health care system more transparent, has become “a big mess,” a U.S. senator said last Wednesday at a Senate Finance Committee hearing.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently resumed determinations, after pausing in early February following a federal court decision in Texas.

“We’re seeing lawsuit after lawsuit from providers; insurers aren’t responding in a timely manner or sometimes not at all; and even when the payment determinations are won by providers, payers still don’t pay providers after the statutory deadline,” Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo.


Xavier Becerra, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, blamed an unexpectedly high volume of arbitration claims, many of them frivolous, for the backlog. “Everyone’s just filing all sorts of claims, and these arbitrators are trying to figure out what cases to handle,” Becerra testified at the hearing. “That’s what’s bogging down the system.”

The No Surprises Act got off to a robust start in 2022, preventing 9 million surprise bills in the first nine months of the year. However, regulators were not prepared for the volume of arbitration claims.

“Federal agencies thought there would be about 17,000 arbitration experiences last year,” said Ryan Work, senior vice president, government relations, for the Self-Insurance Institute of America. “Instead, 90,000 claims were disputed, and they had a huge surprise of their own at the end of the day. Saying the portal and the regulators are overwhelmed is an understatement.”


The high number of ineligible claims contributed to the bottleneck. Out of more than 41,000 disputes challenged for eligibility during that period, 21,000 were closed. “You are seeing a huge number of claims going in, very few actually closed and a huge number declared ineligible,” he said.

The Texas Medical Association has filed several lawsuits arguing that HHS has gone against congressional intent when implementing the arbitration process. The association has argued that the regulations implementing the law called for the arbiter to put too much weight on the qualifying payment amount, which is the average geographic rate for a service.

Although the agency is staying true to Congress’ intent with the law, Becerra said legislative action is needed to deal with the high number of claims.


“What we’re trying to do is have a system that works,” he said. “I plead with you to help us make sure that we get to the legitimate cases so a provider that’s looking for real payment, or an insurer that’s saying, `You’re asking for too much,’ we can adjudicate that.”

Legal Challenges To No Surprises Act Regulations Leave Dispute Resolution Process In Flux

Legal challenges to No Surprises Act regulations leave dispute resolution  process in flux | BenefitsPRO

Enacted at the end of 2020, the federal No Surprises Act (NSA) prohibits certain health care providers and facilities that provide their services outside of health plan provider networks from “balance billing.” As a result, those providers and facilities cannot hold patients responsible for the difference between what the provider or facility charges and what health plans or other third-party payers pay for the services.

Recent court decisions have put the rules for determining how much health plans and insurance companies pay those out-of-network providers who are prohibited from balance billing under the new law in flux, further complicating the already complex system for paying health claims. Because providers continue to file lawsuits challenging portions of the federal regulations governing these provider payments, it is unlikely that providers or payers will have a satisfactory or predictable process in place for determining out-of-network payment rates anytime soon.

There are three types of out-of-network health care services covered by the NSA’s balance billing prohibitions: emergency services, air ambulance services, and certain services provided to patients on an out-of-network basis within an in-network facility, such radiology or anesthesiology services from out-of-network providers within an in-network hospital. The NSA directs how payments to out-of-network providers rendering these services will be determined, and the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury have issued regulations and related guidance for making those payment determinations.


Those regulations have been challenged in court by multiple health care provider groups claiming the regulations deviate from the payment methodologies contained in the NSA and that the federal agencies did not follow proper procedures and acted arbitrarily when issuing the regulations. According to the providers bringing these lawsuits, these regulations unlawfully deflate the out-of-network payment rates.

Under the NSA, if out-of-network payment rates are not dictated by state law or an all-payer model agreement under the Social Security Act, and if the providers and payers cannot come to an agreement on the payment rate, either party can opt to have the rate determined through an independent dispute resolution (IDR) arbitration process. The provider lawsuits claim that the federal regulations governing this arbitration process put too much weight on what Congress defined as the Qualified Payment Amount (QPA), the median contracted rate for the service in the geographic region for determining the out-of-network payment rate in arbitration, and not enough weight on other factors set forth in the NSA that they contend should be considered alongside the QPA when determining the rate.

These other factors include, for example, the acuity of the patient receiving the services, the level of training, experience, and quality and outcomes measurements of the provider, and the efforts of the provider and payor to enter into network agreements.


A federal district court in Texas agreed with the providers in several of those cases and struck down portions of the regulations, for example, Texas Medical Ass’n v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs. (TMA I), No. 6:21-cv-00425 (E. D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2022); and LifeNet, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Servs., No. 6:22-cv-00162 (E. D. Tex. Jul. 26, 2022).

TMA I objected to the interim final regulations that the federal agencies issued on an expedited basis in October 2021, which told arbitrators to presume that the QPA was the correct out-of-network payment rate absent credible and clear evidence to the contrary. The provider groups bringing the lawsuits claimed that the regulations impermissibly put a thumb on the scale in favor of the QPA, which they contend lowers how much they are paid. Federal agencies claimed that the regulatory framework for determining payment amounts was a reasonable interpretation of the NSA’s mandates.

After those interim final regulations were vacated by the court in February 2022, the agencies went back to the drawing board and issued a final regulation, which providers subsequently successfully challenged on similar grounds in Texas Medical Ass’n v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs. (TMA II), No. 6:22-cv-00372 (E. D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2023).


Following that February 2023 court decision, the agencies issued guidance to the IDR arbitrators to halt all further payment determinations. Subsequent guidance then told those arbitrators they could proceed with payment determinations, but only for claims for services furnished before October 25, 2022. The arbitrators were directed that, for those claims, “[t]he standards governing a certified IDR entity’s consideration of information when making payment determinations in these disputes are provided in the October 2021 interim final rules, as revised by the opinions and orders of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.” Payment of claims to providers for services furnished on or after October 25, 2022, must await further guidance. As of early February 2023, there was a backlog of approximately 200,000 payment disputes in the IDR process.

These lawsuits are not the only ones brought by providers challenging the government’s regulations implementing the NSA. In Texas Medical Ass’n v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs. (TMA III), No. 6:22-cv-00450 (E. D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2022), providers filed a lawsuit in the same court in Texas objecting to the methodology in the regulations for calculating the QPA, which they allege artificially deflates the QPA. According to that complaint, the regulations improperly permit payers to count toward the QPA “ghost rates” — rates included in contracts with providers who do not actually provide the specified item or service and thus have no incentive to negotiate a fair and reasonable reimbursement rate.

The lawsuit also objects to portions of the regulations that allow the QPA to be based on rates of providers who are not in the same or similar specialty, that exclude incentive-based and retrospective payments from factoring into the QPA calculation, and that permit self-insured group health plans to use a QPA based on contracted rates of all self-funded plans serviced by their third-party administrators, instead of one calculated on a plan-by-plan basis.

And in Texas Medical Ass’n v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs. (TMA IV), No. 6:23-cv-00059 (E. D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2023), providers objected to a December 2022 increase from $50 to $350 in the administrative fee that each party must pay, in addition to the arbitrator’s fee, to participate in the IDR process, and to the portion of the regulations that govern when providers can batch similar or related claims together for IDR payment determinations. The court has not yet addressed the merits of either lawsuit.

The current state of complexity and uncertainty surrounding the payment methodologies and IDR process is certainly consuming the time, attention, and resources of health plans, insurance companies, and other payers, the health care providers and facilities covered by the NSA, and the arbitrators involved in the IDR process. Benefits professionals should anticipate further guidance or even additional rulemaking from the federal agencies as they attempt to develop a workable process for determining out-of-network payment rates that limits transaction costs for all involved but sufficiently tracks the text of the NSA to pass judicial scrutiny. But there likely will not be an efficient system in place for some time and future court rulings may complicate the federal agencies’ work implementing the NSA even more.

As a practical matter, the current delays in payments to providers and uncertainties surrounding the criteria to be used in calculating out-of-network payment rates may work to encourage more provider network participation and overall health care cost reductions for plan sponsors and participants. Whether Congress steps in to amend or clarify the NSA, or engage in further oversight of its implementation, also remains a possibility.

Last Updated 03/29/2023

Arch Apple Financial Services | Individual & Family Health Plans, Affordable Care California, Group Medical Insurance, California Health Insurance Exchange Marketplace, Medicare Supplements, HMO & PPO Health Care Plans, Long Term Care & Disability Insurance, Life Insurance, Dental Insurance, Vision Insurance, Employee Benefits, Affordable Care Act Assistance, Health Benefits Exchange, Buy Health Insurance, Health Care Reform Plans, Insurance Agency, Westminster, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine, Santa Ana, Tustin, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Hills, Laguna Beach, Laguna Woods, Long Beach, Orange, Tustin Foothills, Seal Beach, Anaheim, Newport Beach, Yorba Linda, Placentia, Brea, La Habra, Orange County CA

12312 Pentagon Street - Garden Grove, CA 92841-3327 - Tel: 714.638.0853 - 800.731.2590
Copyright @ 2015 - Website Design and Search Engine Optimization by Blitz Mogul