Not the Last Word: Surprise Medical Bills are Hardly Charitable

Surprise Billing Is Common in Total Joint Arthroplasty and Negatively Impacts Patient Satisfaction

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA) may receive unexpected medical bills. Such "surprise" bills may cause financial hardship for patients, which prompted policymakers to pass the No Surprises Act. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of surprise bills for patients undergoing TJA and the effect of surprise billing on patient satisfaction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent a primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at a large multi-state institution. Patients completed a questionnaire regarding the incidence of surprise bills after their surgery, details of those bills, and how the bills affected their surgical satisfaction. Independent predictors for receiving a surprise bill were assessed through a multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

Twelve percent of participants received at least one surprise bill after their TJA. The most common surprise bill came from the surgical facility (48%), followed by anesthesia (36%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified older age and Black race to be independent predictors of surprise billing. Furthermore, surgery occurring after the No Surprises Act bill enforcement on January 1, 2022, was found to increase a patient's likelihood of receiving a surprise bill (P=.039, effect size=0.18). Patients who received a surprise bill reported being significantly less satisfied with their surgery (P=.002, effect size=0.45). Forty-nine percent of patients with a surprise bill felt their billing negatively affected their surgical satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Surprise billing continues to occur after TJA and can negatively affect patient satisfaction. Although surgeons may be unable to limit the amount of bills patients receive postoperatively, increased communication and education regarding the perioperative billing process may prove to be beneficial for both patient satisfaction and the physician-patient relationship. [Orthopedics. 20XX;4X(X):XXX-XXX.].

Surprise Billing in Elective Shoulder Surgery and Its Effect on Patient Satisfaction

Patients often receive multiple bills following surgery, which may come as a surprise to them if they are not appropriately informed or educated prior to surgery. The purpose of this study was to identify whether surprise billing occurs following shoulder rotator cuff repair and its effect on patient satisfaction. The study surveyed adult patients who underwent elective rotator cuff repair from January 2020 to October 2021. Patients were asked if they received unexpected bills after their surgery, as well as about details regarding those bills. Additionally, patients were asked about their medical insurance carrier, knowledge of the billing process prior to surgery, and how they felt the process could be improved. Finally, patients were asked how these bills and the overall billing process affected their surgical satisfaction. Of the 158 responses, 25% of the patients stated they received at least one surprise bill following their rotator cuff surgery, with 57% of these bills being greater than $1000. Patients who received surprise bills reported being significantly less satisfied with their surgery (P<.001) and felt their billing experience affected their surgical satisfaction (64% vs 9%, P<.001). One in 4 patients undergoing elective rotator cuff repair received a surprise bill following surgery. These bills were monetarily substantial and significantly affected surgical satisfaction. Although surgeons may be unable to limit the amount of bills patients receive postoperatively, increased communication and education regarding the perioperative billing process may prove to be beneficial for both patient satisfaction and the physician-patient relationship. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(2):123-127.].

The Impact of Unexpected Billing in Spine Surgery and How the Price Calculator Can Improve Patient Care

STUDY DESIGN

Survey study.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the impact of unexpected in-network billing on the patient experience after spinal surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The average American household faces difficulty paying unexpected medical bills. Although legislative efforts have targeted price transparency and rising costs, elective surgical costs continue to rise significantly. Patients are therefore sometimes still responsible for unexpected medical costs, the impact of which is unknown in spine surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective spine surgery patients from January 2021 to January 2022 at a single institution were surveyed regarding their experience with the billing process. Demographic characteristics associated with unexpected billing situations, patient satisfaction, and financial distress, along with utilization and evaluation of the online price estimator, were collected.

RESULTS

Of 818 survey participants, 183 (22.4%) received an unexpected in-network bill, and these patients were younger (56.7 vs. 63.4 y, P <0.001). Patients who received an unexpected bill were more likely to feel uninformed about billing (41.2% vs. 21.7%, P <0.001) and to report that billing impacted surgical satisfaction (53.8% vs. 19.1%, P <0.001). However, both groups reported similar satisfaction postoperatively (Likert >3/5: 86.0% vs. 85.5%, P =0.856). Only 35 (4.3%) patients knew of the price estimator's existence. The price estimator was reported to be very easy or easy (N=18, 78.2%) to understand and very accurate (N=6, 35.3%) or somewhat accurate (N=8, 47.1%) in predicting costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite new regulations, a significant portion of patients received unexpected bills leading to financial distress and affecting their surgical experience. Although most patients were unaware of the price estimator, almost all patients who did know of it found it to be easy to use and accurate in cost prediction. Patients may benefit from targeted education efforts, including information on the price estimator to alleviate unexpected financial burden.

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.

Rapid Review of "No Surprise" Medical Billing in the United States: Stakeholder Perceptions and Challenges

Surprise medical bills received after care delivery in both emergency and non-emergency situations for out-of-network (OON) or other contractual health plan regulations adds additional stress upon the care guarantor, most often the patient. The passing and continued implementation of the federal No Surprises Act (NSA) and related state-level legislation continues to influence the processes of care delivery in the United States. This rapid review evaluated the literature specific to surprise medical billing in the United States since the passing of the No Surprise Act, guided by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) protocol. A total of 33 articles were reviewed by the research team and the results demonstrate industry stakeholder perceptions related to two primary industry themes (constructs) surrounding surprise billing: healthcare stakeholder perspectives and medical claim dispute (arbitration) processes. Further investigation identified sub-constructs for each: the practice of balance-billing patients for OON care and healthcare provider, and facility equitable reimbursement challenges (primary theme 1), and arbitration observations and challenges surrounding (a) the NSA medical dispute process, (b) state-level arbitration processes and perceptions, and (c) use of the Medicare fee schedule as a benchmark for arbitration decisions (primary theme 2). The results indicate the need for formative policy improvement initiatives to address the generation of surprise billing.

The No Surprises Act: What Do Plastic Surgeons Need to Know?

Background:

Out-of-network, or “surprise” bills, have grown common in recent years and have raised substantial concern for patients. Congress recently enacted the No Surprises Act, effective on January 1, 2022, ending the majority of out-of-network bills for privately insured patients. The aim of this review is to briefly summarize the history of surprise billing, describe the regulations of the No Surprises Act, and examine the impact this legislation will have on the field of plastic surgery.

Methods:

A PubMed and Google Scholar literature search was conducted on out-of-network billing, or surprise bills, and the No Surprises Act. Media outlets, governmental agencies, and local and national medical organizations were additionally queried for surprise billing and the No Surprises Act.

Results:

Under the No Surprises Act, privately insured patients are protected from surprise medical bills in emergency and nonemergency settings, and uninsured or self-pay patients must be provided a good faith estimate of service fees before receiving nonemergent care. Plastic surgeons may consent patients to receive out-of-network bills if consent is obtained at least 72 hours before rendering a nonemergency service. Despite these patient protections, this act may influence plastic surgeons’ reimbursement rates and incentivize surgeons to alter their network status.

Conclusions:

The No Surprises Act provides significant protections for patients. However, it may have adverse effects for plastic surgeons. Plastic surgeons will only get paid in-network fees while providing care to patients unless consent is properly obtained in a nonemergent setting.