Blog | Transparency

U.S. District judge hears CMS price transparency lawsuit opening arguments

Blog | Transparency

U.S. District judge hears CMS price transparency lawsuit opening arguments

  • CMS’s controversial price transparency policy is the subject of a lawsuit filed against the administration by the AHA and several providers.
  • Modern Healthcare reported that an attorney for the plaintiff argued before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia May 7 that lawmakers only allowed the federal government to make hospitals post a list of so-called “standard charges” and the rates they charge for diagnostic-related groups.
  • The attorney argued further that negotiated rates, by their nature, cannot be standard charges because they are the result of private negotiations, according to Modern Healthcare.

With everything else going on it might be easy to forget about CMS’s controversial price transparency policy, which is the subject of a lawsuit filed against the administration by the AHA and several providers.

According to an article in Modern Healthcare, an attorney for the plaintiff during the May 7 hearing argued that, “Lawmakers only allowed the federal government to make hospitals post a list of so-called ‘standard charges' and the rates they charge for diagnostic-related groups."

Modern Healthcare reported the same attorney argued that negotiated rates, by their nature, cannot be standard charges because they are the result of private negotiations.

The administration countered, in the article, that "hospitals' interpretation of federal law is misguided because it wouldn't make sense for Congress only to allow the agency to force hospitals to post their chargemaster lists and rates for diagnostic-related groups, especially since the latter can vary significantly by patient.”

Lawyers for the administration also used arguments providers used to push back against CMS’s original requirement that hospitals post their chargemasters stating that the data in the chargemaster for most consumers is meaningless. This they believe justifies the administration’s expanded definition of “standard charges,” which includes negotiated rates.  

Takeaway

Politico reported that the federal judge hearing the case appeared to side in his questioning with the administration. Obviously, it’s hard to tell how the judge will rule based on questioning at argument. And this is just the opening act in what will likely be a long series of appeals. 

About the Author

Chad Mulvany, FHFMA,

is director, healthcare finance policy, strategy and development, HFMA’s Washington, D.C., office.

 

 

Advertisements

Related Articles | Transparency

Blog | Medicare Payment and Reimbursement

More policymaking likely as the 2020 presidential election approaches

HFMA's Chad Mulvany says given the Trump administration’s focus on transparency, it’s possible the Transparency in Coverage final rule could be released prior to the election.

Blog | Medicare Payment and Reimbursement

HFMA provides insight into 3 key areas of CMS’s 2021 IPPS final rule

HFMA's Chad Mulvany offers insight on key areas of the Inpatient Prospective Payment Service final rule, including market-based MS-DRG weights, Uncompensated Care DSH and Medicare bad debt requirements.

News | Medicare Payment and Reimbursement

CMS finalizes requirement for hospitals to report MA plan rates

In the FY21 IPPS final rule, CMS expanded controversial negotiated-price reporting requirements.

Executive Roundtable | Value-Based Payment

Ripple effects of the pandemic on the move toward value

In this HFMA executive roundtable, seven executives for health systems and health plans share how the pandemic has impacted their organization’s move toward value — and what it will take to foster transparency and trust under these models.