Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Surprise! A Cautionary Tale for Out-Of-Network Billing: The No Surprises Act and the Impact on Healthcare Providers

Client Alert

SURPRISE! Congress passed The No Surprises Act at the end of 2020. Providers, particularly those billing as out-of-network providers, should start thinking about strategies to comply with this new law, set to take effect on January 1, 2022. 

In its most basic sense, the new law prohibits providers from billing patients for more than the in-network cost-sharing amount in most situations where surprise bills happen. It specifically applies to non-government payers and the amounts will be set through a process described in the new law. In particular, the established in-network cost-sharing amount must be billed for the following services:

  1. Out-of-network emergency facility and professional services;
  2. Post-stabilization care at out-of-network facilities until the patient can be safely transferred to another facility;
  3. Air ambulance transports;
  4. Out-of-network services delivered at or ordered from an in-network facility unless the provider complies with the notice and consent process set forth in the new law.

In addition to the limitation on what can be billed to patients by out-of-network providers, the following is a list of other key provisions in The No Surprises Act of which out-of-network providers should be particularly aware:

  1. Providers may not hold patients liable for higher amounts or denying treatment to out-of-network patients for emergency services and certain non-emergency services.
  2. There is a required Independent Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) process that insurers and providers will be required to follow in order to settle billing disputes.
  3. For permissible balance billing, providers must comply with the prescribed notice and consent process within 72 hours of the item or service to be provided.
  4. Providers must share good faith estimates of the total expected charges for scheduled items or services, with either the insurer or patient, when the items or services are scheduled at least three days in advance or when requested by the patient.
  5. All health care providers must make publicly available information on patient’s rights with respect to balance billing. Providers will need to make this notice available on their websites too.

Providers should understand that the Act permits states to require providers to adhere to these provisions and enforce compliance. Even if your state does not enforce compliance, the HHS Secretary is able to issue civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation.

Future Updates

By July 1, 2021 the Secretaries of HHS, Labor and Treasury must issue regulations regarding the qualifying cost-sharing amounts. The Secretary of HHS must also issue further guidance regarding the notice and consent process by July 1, 2021.

As of now, the IDR process will be effective January 1, 2022; however, the Secretaries of HHS, Labor and Treasury may change the process and issue the final regulations by December 27, 2021.

Stay tuned as regulations are finalized and more information becomes available.

If you are interested in learning more about The No Surprises Act, policies and forms you can use to comply with The No Surprises Act, or out-of-network billing in general, please contact Healthcare and Hospital Law Member Jeana M. Singleton at jmsingleton@bmdllc.com or 330-253-2001, or any member of the BMD Healthcare and Hospital Law group.


Community Behavioral Health Providers - Supervisor Pricing Changes Begin July 1 [Corrected Date]

Effective June 16, community behavioral health providers wishing to receive reimbursement at the supervisor rate must add the HP or HT Modifier to fee-for-service (FFS) claims. Find out about the new guidelines.

CMS Rescinds EMTALA Guidance for Emergency Abortions

On June 3, 2025, CMS withdrew its 2022 guidance on emergency abortion care under EMTALA, eliminating federal protection for providers in states with abortion restrictions. This policy change could significantly impact how hospitals handle emergency care involving pregnancy complications.

Supreme Court Eliminates Higher Burden for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Claims

In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that all Title VII plaintiffs, whether from majority or minority groups, must meet the same evidentiary standard. The decision eliminates the “background circumstances rule” and reinforces equal treatment in workplace discrimination claims.

Understanding Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews: A Critical Guide for Immigrants Facing Removal

In his latest article, Immigration Attorney and former Immigration Judge Rob Ratliff offers a clear breakdown of Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews—key procedures for noncitizens seeking protection from persecution or torture. Citing Judge Brian Murphy’s recent ruling on unlawful deportations to South Sudan, Ratliff connects these critical legal standards to current judicial developments. Read the full article at www.removal-defense.com.

House Republicans Propose Cuts to Medicaid to Finance Savings

House Republicans have introduced legislative language that proposes substantial cuts to the Medicaid entitlement program, aiming to achieve significant budget savings through policy changes. The proposed measures include stricter eligibility verification, work requirements for certain adults, and federal funding cuts to states providing coverage to undocumented residents. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the proposed healthcare provisions would reduce spending by $715 billion and could result in 8.6 million fewer people having health insurance by 2034.