Frequency and Costs of Out-of-Network Bills for Outpatient Laboratory Services Among Privately Insured Patients

Site of Ambulance Origination and Billing for Out-of-Network Services

Importance

The No Surprises Act implemented in 2022 aims to protect patients from surprise out-of-network (OON) bills, but it does not include ground ambulance services. Understanding ground ambulance OON and balance billing patterns from previous years could guide legislation aimed to protect patients following ground ambulance use.

Objective

To characterize OON billing from ground ambulance services by evaluating whether OON billing risk differs by the site of ambulance origination (home, hospital, nonhospital medical facility, or scene of incident).

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cross-sectional study of the Merative MarketScan dataset between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, using claims-based data from employer-based private health insurance plans in the US. Participants included patients who utilized ground ambulances during the study period. Data were analyzed from June to December 2023.

Exposure

Medical encounter requiring ground ambulance transportation.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Ground ambulance OON billing prevalence was calcuated. Linear probability models adjusted for state-level mixed effects were fit to evaluate OON billing probability across ambulance origins. Secondary outcomes included the allowed payment, patient cost-sharing amounts, and potential balance bills for OON ambulances.

Results

Among 2 031 937 ground ambulance services (1 375 977 unique patients) meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 1 072 791 (52.8%) rides transported men, and the mean (SD) patient age was 41 (18) years. Of all services, 1 113 676 (54.8%) were billed OON. OON billing probabilities for ambulances originating from home or scene were higher by 12.0 percentage points (PP) (95% CI, 11.8-12.2 PP; P < .001 for home; 95% CI, 11.7-12.2 PP; P < .001 for scene) vs those originating from hospitals. Mean (SD) total financial burden, including cost-sharing and potential balance bills per ambulance service, was $434.70 ($415.99) per service billed OON vs $132.21 ($244.92) per service billed in-network.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of over 2 million ground ambulance services, ambulances originating from home, the scene of an incident, and nonhospital medical facilities were more likely to result in OON bills. Legislation is needed to protect patients from surprise billing following use of ground ambulances, more than half of which resulted in OON billing. Future legislation should at minimum offer protections for these subsets of patients often calling for an ambulance in urgent or emergent situations.

Definition, Practice, Regulations, and Effects of Balance Billing: A Scoping Review

Background

Additional billing is commonly and legally practiced in some countries for patients covered by health insurance. However, knowledge and understanding of the additional billings are limited. This study reviews evidence on additional billing practices including definition, scope of practice, regulations and their effects on insured patients.

Methods

A systematic search of the full-text papers that provided the details of balance billing for health services, written in English, and published between 2000 and 2021 was carried out in Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science. Articles were screened independently by at least 2 reviewers for eligibility. Thematic analysis was applied.

Results

In total, 94 studies were selected for the final analysis. Most of the included articles (83%) reported findings from the United States (US). Numerous terms of additional billings were used across countries such as balance billing, surprise billing, extra billing, supplements and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending. The range of services incurred these additional bills also varied across countries, insurance plans, and healthcare facilities; the frequently reported were emergency services, surgeries, and specialist consultation. There were a few positive though more studies reported negative effects of the substantial additional bills which undermined universal health coverage (UHC) goals by causing financial hardship and reducing access to care. A range of government measures had been applied to mitigate these adverse effects, but some difficulties still exist.

Conclusion

Additional billings varied in terms of terminology, definitions, practices, profiles, regulations, and outcomes. There were a set of policy tools aimed to control substantial billing to insured patients despite some limitations and challenges. Governments should apply multiple policy measures to improve financial risk protection to the insured population.

Out-of-network bills among privately insured patients undergoing hysterectomy

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the issue of out-of-network billing for privately insured patients has been highlighted as a source of unexpected out-of-pocket charges for patients, even in the setting of an in-network primary surgeon. The Congress recently passed the No Surprises Act to curtail these practices. However, the new law contains exceptions, and its regulatory system has yet to be established. As one of the most frequently performed major surgical procedures, hysterectomy represents a significant exposure to out-of-network bills among nonelderly females in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the extent and nature of out-of-network bills at the time of hysterectomy among privately insured patients in the context of the recently passed No Surprises Act.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a retrospective cohort study of women aged 18 to 64 years who underwent simple hysterectomy from 2008 to 2018 with an in-network primary surgeon in the IBM Watson Marketscan claims database, which includes data from over 350 different payers. We identified out-of-network claims for facility or professional services and analyzed the frequency, size, and source of the payments. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess for patient, procedure, and facility characteristics associated with the risk of out-of-network claims.

RESULTS

We identified 585,223 hysterectomy cases meeting all the inclusion criteria, and they were evenly split between inpatient (49.6%) and outpatient (50.4%) procedures. Overall, 8.8% of cases included at least 1 out-of-network claim, with median out-of-network expenditures of $553 for inpatient procedures and $438 for outpatient procedures. Compared with professional out-of-network claims, facility out-of-network claims were less common (2.3% vs 7.4%) but far greater in the amount billed (median $8,307 vs $400 inpatient, $3,281 vs $407 outpatient). Among the professional claims, those from midlevel surgical assistants were most frequently out-of-network when present (13.8% inpatient; 20.0% outpatient), whereas out-of-network claims from anesthesia were most common overall and largest (median $890 inpatient, $1,021 outpatient) when present. In a multivariable model, older age, increasing comorbidity, and complications during the stay were associated with higher odds of any out-of-network claim. In contrast, the risk of facility out-of-network claims was more strongly associated with the facility region and the surgical approach, with the highest odds for cases in the North Central region and those using robotic approach.

CONCLUSION

Out-of-network bills for privately insured patients at the time of hysterectomy occurred in 8.8% of cases. Approximately one-quarter of these included out-of-network facility claims tended to have higher payments than out-of-network professional claims and may not be prevented by the No Surprises Act. Gynecologic surgeons should be aware of the potential out-of-network charges for ancillary services at the time of surgery, particularly the network status of the facility, to provide maximal transparency and financial protection to our patients.