Live Webinar | Health Plan Payment and Reimbursement
Live Webinar | hfma:content/topic/behavioral_ethics
Blog | Health Plan Payment and Reimbursement

Texas-based study raises questions about impact of using additional criteria in No Surprises Act arbitration cases

Blog | Health Plan Payment and Reimbursement

Texas-based study raises questions about impact of using additional criteria in No Surprises Act arbitration cases

Arbiters in Texas have tended to issue judgments that mirror the median in-network rate even with guidance instructing them to consider other factors, researchers reported.

Results of a new study indicate that ongoing litigation over the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process established by the No Surprises Act may not have a major impact on IDR outcomes.

The study of IDR outcomes in Texas, which in 2020 implemented a law prohibiting surprise billing, suggests “arbiters may anchor to a median in-network price benchmark," researchers reported in JAMA.

Initially, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued regulations requiring arbiters to primarily consider the median in-network payment amount for a given service in a given market (i.e., the qualifying payment amount) when settling disputes between providers and health plans over out-of-network payments under the No Surprises Act.

Provider representatives have filed at least six different lawsuits challenging those regulations, saying Congress intended for arbiters to consider additional criteria. In the lone case to be decided thus far, a judge said the regulations deviated from legislative intent and IDR arbiters should assess other criteria as well.

HHS has been working on new regulations that purportedly will incorporate those criteria. A key finding of the new study calls into question whether such changes will have a substantial effect on outcomes.

Specifically, in Texas’s IDR process, final allowed amounts closely tracked the median in-network benchmark, with a median ratio of 1.06 between the two metrics. In comparison, the ratio of final allowed amounts to the 80th-percentile-of-charges benchmark was 0.37.

Median in-network prices and 80th percentile of charges both are among the criteria required to be used in Texas IDR cases. The two benchmarks are provided by the independent nonprofit FAIR Health.

The 80th percentile of charges is not among the statutory criteria in the federal IDR process, and the absence of that metric might be a drag on final judgments relative to those seen in Texas and even more so in other states that have arbitration mechanisms.

“Final allowed amounts resulting from IDR in Texas were lower than in New York and New Jersey, where arbiters are not shown median in-network prices, and previous research found that mean awards reflected the 80th percentile of charges benchmark,” the researchers noted.

Study methodology and data

As reported in the study, researchers with the University of Southern California and the University of Pennsylvania examined Texas IDR cases spanning a 15-month period starting in January 2020.

Among more than 32,000 unique IDR cases involving clinicians, 80% of services fell under the category of emergency medicine and 12% were for anesthesia.

In the sample of disputed services, mean charges were $2,306 and mean initial allowed amounts were $192. The mean judgment was $635 — virtually identical to the average FAIR Health median allowed amount benchmark of $634.

Unlike the federal IDR system, Texas includes the option for disputes to be settled by teleconference before proceeding to arbitration. In the study sample, 74% of cases were settled via teleconference.

But that preliminary step may not make a huge difference in the arbitration outcomes. The researchers reported that the median ratio of final allowed amounts to FAIR Health median in-network allowed amounts was 1.12 for arbitrations compared with 1.03 for settlements.

About the Author

Nick Hut

is a senior editor with HFMA, Westchester, Ill. (

Sign up for a free guest account and get access to five free articles every month.


Related Articles | Health Plan Payment and Reimbursement

News | Health Plan Payment and Reimbursement

New federal rule aims to eventually ease prior authorization processes

CMS is taking steps to try to improve the prior authorization process in government programs, although the core provisions would not begin until 2026.

News | Billing and Collections

HHS says the co-provider requirement for good-faith estimates is being tabled indefinitely

The co-provider requirement won’t be enforced until the issuance of future rules, which doesn’t seem imminent given the apparent prerequisite to set a path to better industrywide interoperability.

Trend | Price Transparency

When it comes to healthcare price transparency regulations, questions abound

A new era for healthcare price transparency has been underway for almost two years, but the potential impact remains murky.

Article | Health Plan Payment and Reimbursement

CareCredit healthcare credit card provides flexible payment options for both patients and healthcare providers

Read about one company's payment solution that gives patients a way to pay for out-of-pocket healthcare costs while enabling health care organizations to receive payment for services within two business days.