Now Is the Time to Address Surprise Billing

https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/marty-makary/86455?xid=fb_o&trw=no&fbclid=IwAR1boFFgBZuSqJ9-1728UdSFeIK790TTXNeoJJ9mky9jCKbGyQ_G4jqwrfk

Tips to avoid surprise medical bills

The doctor-patient relationship is being undermined.

Private equity companies have spent millions in dark money to stall and effectively kill all versions of surprise billing reform. But this week, the issue will come before Congress again. Legislation was introduced Tuesday in the House that, among other things, would further assist hospitals with more relief funds. With this potential third disbursement of federal dollars comes an opportunity to finally address the embarrassing problem of surprise billing that has eroded the public trust in our great medical profession.

Physicians across the country are now signing a letter urging leaders of Congress to address surprise billing once and for all. I have already signed this letter and encourage you to consider doing so as well.

One reason the medical profession is the greatest profession in the world is that patients put their faith and trust in us. But 64% of Americans now say they have avoided or delayed medical care for fear of the bill. As more and more patients lose faith in the system, the doctor-patient relationship is being undermined by surprise billing and the modern-day business practices of price gouging and predatory billing. In fact, these egregious practices have become part of the business model of some private equity groups, which seek to replace physician autonomy with corporate medicine.

Our system today is unnecessarily complicated and works against patients’ interests by putting them in the middle of a finger-pointing blame game, which leaves them holding the bag. It doesn’t make sense for us to accept people with open arms, treat their ailment, and then ruin their lives financially. Medical science is a bastion of scientific and intellectual genius. We can fix this problem. Already, some efforts are advancing price transparency by creating a transparent marketplace for patients.

I’ve spent many years looking at the systematic cost issues that face our health system and patients. Simply put, the lack of fairness and transparency in pricing and billing practices has created financial toxicity and increased the general mistrust of the medical system for millions of Americans. No one designed it to be this bad. In fact, we have good people working in a bad system. When I explain details of pricing, billing, and collections with doctors and hospital leaders, they are invariably shocked and furious to learn how out of control their billing offices have gotten in overcharging patients and shaking people down for more than a reasonable amount for a service.

The current COVID-19 crisis is a stark reminder of the gaps in our health system that exacerbate the pressures facing providers and patients. Many Americans are getting crushed right now. Despite many years of debate in Washington and bipartisan agreement that something must be done, there is still no federal protection in place to safeguard consumers from an egregious surprise medical bill if they need emergency care or have limited options. The reality is that special interests — including the very private equity firms that stand to benefit financially from these exploitative business practices — continue to spend millions to maintain the status quo.

It’s time for a bipartisan compromise to end the non-transparent game of surprise medical billing. It’s time that Congress takes meaningful action to protect patients during this COVID-19 crisis and finally address this issue. Congress has solutions on the table that would bring much greater fairness and transparency to the healthcare system, protect patients from these predatory charges, and ensure that physicians are paid fairly for our services, as we deserve. It’s time we put an end to the cycle of financial toxicity and rebuild the great public trust in the medical profession.

 

 

 

 

Newly uninsured can turn to stable ACA market

https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-vitals-fb6b1c68-afc1-4b2b-9096-de20fd0b10a7.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Stable costs but more uninsured as 'Obamacare' sign-ups open

People losing their employer-based health insurance in the coronavirus economy would find a pretty stable Affordable Care Act market if they need it — not that the Trump administration is advertising that fact, Bob writes.

Why it matters: ACA plans will be an important backstop for some newly uninsured people, many of whom could likely find affordable coverage on the law’s insurance marketplaces.

Where it stands: The average monthly premium for ACA coverage was down 3% in this year’s enrollment period, compared with 2019, according to a federal report that was released earlier this month but not publicly promoted.

  • That average monthly premium is $595, but the overwhelming majority of enrollees get a subsidy to help cover those costs — and people who have just lost a job could be eligible for those.
  • Some people “could get paid to buy ACA plans” right now because of looming insurance company rebates, according to Duke University health insurance researcher David Anderson.

Yes, but: You won’t hear much about those options from the Trump administration, which has been consistently hostile to the ACA and has declined to open up a special enrollment window that would let anyone who has been disrupted by the economic shutdown to buy coverage.

 

 

 

 

We can’t just flip the switch on the coronavirus

https://www.axios.com/coronavirus-slow-recovery-econony-deaths-27e8d258-754e-4883-bebe-a2e95564e3b6.html

The end of the coronavirus lockdown won't be like flipping a ...

It feels like some big, terrible switch got flipped when the coronavirus upended our lives — so it’s natural to want to simply flip it back. But that is not how the return to normalcy will go.

The big picture: Even as the number of illnesses and deaths in the U.S. start to fall, and we start to think about leaving the house again, the way forward will likely be slow and uneven. This may feel like it all happened suddenly, but it won’t end that way.

What’s next: Nationally, the number of coronavirus deaths in the U.S. is projected to hit its peak within the next few days. But many big cities will see their own peaks significantly later — for them, the worst is yet to come.

  • The White House is eyeing May 1 as the time to begin gradually reopening the economy. But that also will not be a single nationwide undertaking, and it will be a halting process even in the places where it can start to happen soon.
  • “In principle it sounds very nice, and everyone wants to return to normalcy. I think in reality it has to be incredibly carefully managed,” said Claire Standley, an infectious-disease expert at Georgetown University.

The future will come in waves — waves of recovery, waves of more bad news, and waves of returning to some semblance of normal life.

  • “It’s going to be a gradual evolution back to something that approximates our normal lives,” former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said.

What the post-lockdown world will look like:

  • Some types of businesses will likely be able to open before others, and only at partial capacity.
  • Stores may continue to only allow a certain number of customers through the door at once, or restaurants may be able to reopen but with far fewer tables available at once.
  • Some workplaces will likely bring employees back into the office only a few days a week and will stagger shifts to segregate groups of workers from each other, so that one new infection won’t get the whole company sick.
  • Large gatherings may need to stay on ice.

And there will be more waves of infection, even in areas that have passed their peaks.

  • “Everything doesn’t just go down to zero” once a city or region gets through its initial crush of cases, said Janet Baseman, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington.
  • This is happening now in Singapore, which controlled its initial outbreak more effectively than almost any other country in the world but is now seeing the daily number of new cases climb back up.

This is all but inevitable in the U.S., too, especially as travel begins to pick back up. Some places may need to shut down again, or at least tighten back up, if these new flare-ups are bad enough.

  • Part of the reason to lock down schools, businesses and workplaces is to prevent an outbreak from overwhelming the local health care system. If new cases start to pile up too quickly, leaders may need to pump the brakes.
  • “If you go back to normal too fast, then cases start to go up quickly, and then we end up back where we started,” Baseman said.
  • The good news, though, is that hospitals should have far more supplies by the fall, thanks to the coming surge in manufacturing for items like masks and ventilators.

What we’re watching: We’ll still need a lot more diagnostic testing to make this process work. Public health officials need to be able to identify people who might be spreading the virus before they begin to feel sick, and then identify the people they may have infected.

  • Most of the U.S. does not seem prepared for that undertaking, at least on any significant scale.
  • Another kind of test — serology tests, which identify people who have already had the virus and may be immune to it — will also help. We can’t test everyone, but identifying potential immunity could be important in knowing who can safely return to work in high-risk fields like health care.

The real turning point won’t come until there’s a proven, widely available treatment or, even better, a widely available vaccine.

  • A vaccine is still about a year away, even at a breakneck pace and if everything goes right. A treatment isn’t likely to be available until the fall, at the earliest.
  • In the meantime, all we can do is try to manage a slow recovery, using a less aggressive version of the same tools that are in place today.

The bottom line: “I’m not going back to Disneyland, I’m not going to take a cruise again, until we have a very aggressive testing system or we have very effective therapeutics or a vaccine,” Gottlieb said.

 

 

 

 

What health care is getting out of the stimulus package

https://www.axios.com/health-care-hospitals-coronavirus-stimulus-package-c49bd0cc-05a0-479a-a83d-d4455bd0e7bd.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosvitals&stream=top

Senate passes $2 Trillion coronavirus economic stimulus plan, it ...

Congress’ big stimulus package will provide more than $100 billion and several favorable payment policies to hospitals, doctors and others in the health care system as they grapple with the coronavirus outbreak.

The big picture: Hospitals, including those that treat a lot of rural and low-income patients, are getting the bailout they asked for — and then some.

The cornerstone provision is a no-strings-attached $100 billion fund for hospitals and other providers so they “continue to receive the support they need for COVID-19 related expenses and lost revenue,” according to a summary of the legislation.

  • It’s unclear how that money would be divvied up. One lobbyist speculated the funds would go to the “hardest-hit areas first and those areas that are next expected to get hit,” but that has not been clarified.

The bill provides many other incentives for the industry.

  • Hospitals that treat Medicare patients for COVID-19 will get a 20% payment increase for all services provided. That means Medicare’s payment for these types of hospital stays could go from $10,000 to $12,000, depending on the severity of the illness.
  • Employers and health insurers will be required to pay hospitals and labs whatever their charges are for COVID-19 tests if a contract is not in place. By comparison, Medicare pays $51.33 for a commercial coronavirus test.
  • Medicare’s “sequestration,” which cuts payments to providers by 2%, will be lifted until the end of this year.
  • Labs won’t face any scheduled Medicare cuts in 2021, and won delays in future payment cuts as well.

What’s missing: Patients who are hospitalized with COVID-19 could still be saddled with large, surprise bills for out-of-network care.

  • There also are no subsidies for COBRA coverage, which employers wanted for people who lost their jobs. However, people who are laid off are able to sign up for a health plan on the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces or could qualify for Medicaid.

 

 

 

 

This Is One Anxiety We Should Eliminate for the Coronavirus Outbreak

Image result for This Is One Anxiety We Should Eliminate for the Coronavirus Outbreak

A patient can do everything right and still face substantial surprise medical bills.

In his recent Oval Office speech, President Trump pledged that Americans won’t receive surprise bills for their coronavirus testing.

The goal is good; we need people who are lightly symptomatic to be tested without fear of high personal costs. But it was an empty promise. Unless swift action is taken, surprise bills are coming. And they could exacerbate a public health crisis that is already threatening to spiral out of control.

As demand for coronavirus testing surges and beds start to fill with the sick, hospitals and clinics will roll out contingency plans that call on any available resources in their communities. Test samples will be sent to whichever private laboratories have capacity, patients will be transferred from overloaded hospitals to less-crowded locations and physicians and nurses will make greater use of telemedicine.

Emergency rooms will be slammed with visits from the worried well and the dangerously sick alike. College students are already being sent home and will seek treatment far from the universities that offer them health insurance.

All of this will be chaotic.

To their credit, health insurers recognize the need to eliminate out-of-pocket spending that might discourage people from seeking care. At a meeting earlier this week with Vice President Mike Pence, they publicly committed to eliminating deductibles and co-pays for coronavirus testing. The federal government is also taking some needed steps to eliminate or ease cost-sharing.

But insurance companies aren’t the ones sending surprise bills. They’re coming from private labs and emergency-room doctors and other providers of health care services — and they weren’t at Vice President Pence’s meeting.

A patient with insurance through work or the health-insurance exchanges can be surprise-billed when she seeks medical care at a hospital or clinic that’s in her insurance “network” — but then receives medical care from a person or an institution that’s outside the network.

That out-of-network provider will first send a bill to the patient’s insurer. But if the insurer doesn’t pay the full amount, the provider may bill the patient directly for the remaining balance. Because the provider is basically free to name its own price, these surprise bills can be wildly inflated.

In a coronavirus pandemic, a patient can do everything right and still face substantial surprise bills. Take someone who fears that she may have contracted Covid-19. After self-quarantining for a week, she develops severe shortness of breath. Her partner rushes her to the nearest in-network emergency room. But she’s actually seen by an out-of-network doctor — who may soon send her a hefty bill for the visit.

Matters get worse if the in-network hospital is approaching capacity and the patient is healthy enough to be sent to a hospital across town with spare beds. If the second hospital is outside her insurance network, she could potentially receive a second surprise bill. A third could come from the ambulance that transfers her — it too might not be in-network, and no one will think to check during a crisis. She could get a fourth surprise bill if her coronavirus tests are sent to an out-of-network lab. And so on.

Even in normal times, patients with private insurance receive roughly one surprise bill for every 10 inpatient hospital admissions.

These are not normal times.

Federal law currently provides little protection. The Affordable Care Act does cap an individual’s out-of-pocket spending — but the cap only applies to in-network care. For surprise bills, the sky is the limit.

Reputable providers will appreciate that now is not the time for price gouging. But many won’t and will seek to exploit people’s medical needs for financial gain, much as they did before the coronavirus began to spread. They may calculate that can collect enough money charging exorbitant fees for out-of-network services — and still make it to an airport ahead of a mob carrying pitchforks and torches.

We need more than gauzy commitments from the president. We need a law to ban bills incurred from out-of-network providers for medical care associated with the coronavirus outbreak. Unless that commitment is ironclad, people may not believe it. And if they don’t believe it, they won’t get tested.

To date, Congress — cowed by a furious public relations campaign led by private equity and specialty physicians — has been unable to pass a law banning routine surprise billing. Though Congress has moved closer to a watered-down deal in recent months, neither the House nor the Senate has actually passed a bill.

The coronavirus should refocus Congress’s attention. At a minimum, the legislature should quickly pass a temporary measure to limit out-of-network charges for coronavirus testing and treatment.

In the meantime, states can take action. About half have already passed surprise-billing laws, including California and New York, two of the hardest-hit states. But the laws in many states are patchy: Some cover only emergency room care, others don’t contain a legal mechanism for cutting back on excessive bills, and none are tailored for the current outbreak.

Already, reports of people who have received eye-popping bills for coronavirus testing or emergency room visits are circulating. As these stories proliferate, people will become even more reluctant to get tested or treated when they should. That will obscure the spread of the virus, complicate efforts to adopt measures for social distancing, and lead to unnecessary deaths.

It’s a national disgrace that the United States didn’t ban surprise bills in a time of relative prosperity and security. It could become a public health calamity if we do not end them in a world with coronavirus.

 

 

 

Experts agree that Trump’s coronavirus response was poor, but the US was ill-prepared in the first place

https://theconversation.com/experts-agree-that-trumps-coronavirus-response-was-poor-but-the-us-was-ill-prepared-in-the-first-place-133674?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20March%2017%202020%20-%201565314971&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20March%2017%202020%20-%201565314971+Version+A+CID_6ce2ffeb273f535ccdcb368c4649a7ee&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=Experts%20agree%20that%20Trumps%20coronavirus%20response%20was%20poor%20but%20the%20US%20was%20ill-prepared%20in%20the%20first%20place

As the coronavirus pandemic exerts a tighter grip on the nation, critics of the Trump administration have repeatedly highlighted the administration’s changes to the nation’s pandemic response team in 2018 as a major contributor to the current crisis. This combines with a hiring freeze at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, leaving hundreds of positions unfilled. The administration also has repeatedly sought to reduce CDC funding by billions of dollars. Experts agree that the slow and uncoordinated response has been inadequate and has likely failed to mitigate the coming widespread outbreak in the U.S.

As a health policy expert, I agree with this assessment. However, it is also important to acknowledge that we have underfunded our public health system for decades, perpetuated a poorly working health care system and failed to bring our social safety nets in line with other developed nations. As a result, I expect significant repercussions for the country, much of which will disproportionately fall on those who can least afford it.

Decades of underfunding

Spending on public health has historically proven to be one of humanity’s best investments. Indeed, some of the largest increases in life expectancy have come as the direct result of public health interventions, such as sanitation improvements and vaccinations.

Even today, return on investments for public health spending is substantial and tends to significantly outweigh many medical interventions. For example, one study found that every US$10 per person spent by local health departments reduces infectious disease morbidity by 7.4%.

However, despite their importance to national well-being, public health expenditures have been neglected at all levels. Since 2008, for example, local health departments have lost more than 55,000 staff. By 2016, only about 133,000 full-time equivalent staff remained. State funding for public health was lower in 2016-2017 than in 2008-2009. And the CDC’s prevention and public health budget has been flat and significantly underfunded for years. Overall, of the more than $3.5 trillion the U.S. spends annually on health care, a meager 2.5% goes to public health.

Not surprisingly, the nation has experienced a number of outbreaks of easily preventable diseases. Currently, we are in the middle of significant outbreaks of hepatitis A (more than 31,000 cases), syphilis (more than 35,000 cases), gonorrhea (more than 580,000 cases) and chlamydia (more than 1,750,000 cases). Our failure to contain known diseases bodes ill for our ability to rein in the emerging coronavirus pandemic.

Failures of health care systems

Yet while we have underinvested in public health, we have been spending massive and growing amounts of money on our medical care system. Indeed, we are spending more than any other country for a system that is significantly underperforming.

To make things worse, it is also highly inequitable. Yet, the system is highly profitable for all players involved. And to maximize income, both for- and nonprofits have consistently pushed for greater privatization and the elimination of competitors.

As a result, thousands of public and private hospitals deemed “inefficient” because of unfilled beds have closed. This eliminated a significant cushion in the system to buffer spikes in demand.

At any given time, this decrease in capacity does not pose much of a problem for the nation. Yet in the middle of a global pandemic, communities will face significant challenges without this surge capacity. If the outbreak mirrors anything close to what we have seen in other countries, “there could be almost six seriously ill patients for every existing hospital bed.” A worst-case scenario from the same study puts the number at 17 to 1. To make things worse, there will likely be a particular shortage of unoccupied intensive care beds.

Of course, the lack of overall hospitals beds is not the most pressing issue. Hospitals also lack the levels of staffing and supplies needed to cope with a mass influx of patients. However, the lack of ventilators might prove the most daunting challenge.

Limits of the overall social safety net

While the U.S. spends trillions of dollars each year on medical care, our social safety net has increasingly come under strain. Even after the Affordable Care Actalmost 30 million Americans do not have health insurance coverage. Many others are struggling with high out-of-pocket payments.

To make things worse, spending on social programs, outside of those protecting the elderly, has been shrinking, and is significantly smaller than in other developed nations. Moreover, public assistance is highly uneven and differs significantly from state to state.

And of course, the U.S. heavily relies on private entities, mostly employers, to offer benefits taken for granted in other developed countries, including paid sick leave and child care. This arrangement leaves 1 in 4 American workers without paid sick leave, resulting in highly inequitable coverage. As a result, many low-income families struggle to make ends meet even when times are good.

Can the US adapt?

I believe that the limitations of the U.S. public health response and a potentially overwhelmed medical care system are likely going to be exacerbated by the blatant limitations of the U.S. welfare state. However, after weathering the current storm, I expect us to go back to business as usual relatively quickly. After all, that’s what happened after every previous pandemic, such as H1N1 in 2009 or even the 1918 flu epidemic.

The problems are in the incentive structure for elected officials. I expect that policymakers will remain hesitant to invest in public health, let alone revamp our safety net. While the costs are high, particularly for the latter, there are no buildings to be named, and no quick victories to be had. The few advocates for greater investments lack resources compared to the trillion-dollar interests from the medical sector.

Yet, if altruism is not enough, we should keep reminding policymakers that outbreaks of communicable diseases pose tremendous challenges for local health care systems and communities. They also create remarkable societal costs. The coronavirus serves as a stark reminder.

 

 

UnitedHealth likely to keep squeezing physician staffing firms

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/unitedhealth-likely-to-keep-squeezing-physician-staffing-firms/573679/

Image result for UnitedHealth likely to keep squeezing physician staffing firms

The nation’s largest private insurer has been terminating its contracts with physician staffing firms in a bid to extract lower prices, part of a years-long pattern analysts say could spur other payers to follow.

UnitedHealthcare contends it is simply trying to curb the rising cost of healthcare by driving out high-cost providers that charge far more than the median rate in its network. The payer said it had hoped to keep these firms in network “at rates that reflect fair market prices,” a UnitedHealthcare spokesperson told Healthcare Dive.

The most recent action targeted Mednax, a firm that provides specialty services including anesthesia, neonatology and high-risk obstetrics in both urban and rural areas. United cut Mednax contracts in four states, pushing those providers out of network, potentially putting patients at risk of balance bills.

United also recently canceled its in-network contracts with U.S. Anesthesia Partners in Texas, starting in April, which caused Moody’s to change its outlook to negative for the provider group because the contracts represent 10% of its annual consolidated revenue.

These latest moves to end relationships with certain physician staffing firms seem to have escalated in recent years, Sarah Kahn, a credit analyst for S&P Global, told Healthcare Dive.

Since the insurer’s 2018 tussle with ER staffing firm Envision, “it’s sort of ramped up and become more aggressive and more abrupt and more pervasive,” Kahn said of the contract disputes.

 

United said the volume of negotiations it’s involved in has not changed in recent years, and added that it expects to renegotiate the same amount of contracts in 2020 that it did in 2019. However, United pointed a finger at a small number of physician staffing firms, backed by private equity, that are attempting to apply pressure on United to preserve the same high rates.

Private equity firms have been increasingly interested in healthcare over the past few years, accelerating acquisitions of medical practices from 2013 to 2016. Private equity acquired 355 physician practices, representing 1,426 sites of care and more than 5,700 physicians over that time frame, according to recent research in JAMA. The firms had a particular focus on anesthesiology with 69 practices acquired, followed by emergency physicians at 43.

Mednax is a publicly traded company. But Envision is owned by investment firm KKR; TeamHealth is owned by private equity firm Blackstone; and U.S. Anesthesia Partners is backed by Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe.

 

Proposed legislation around surprise billing may be influencing United’s actions, Kailash Chhaya, vice president and senior analyst at Moody’s, told Healthcare Dive. Congress has been weighing legislation that seeks to eliminate surprise billing, mainly through two vehicles, either using benchmark rates or arbitration.

If Congress ultimately decides on a bill that uses benchmark rates, or ties reimbursement for out-of-network providers to a benchmark rate (or average), it would benefit insurers like United to lower its average rate for certain services, Chhaya said. One way to do that is to end relationships with high-cost providers.

“It would help payers like UnitedHealth if that benchmark rate is low,” Chhaya said.

In late 2018, United threatened to drop Envision from its network, alleging the firm’s rates were responsible for driving up healthcare costs, according to a letter the payer sent hundreds of hospitals across the country. United and Envision eventually agreed to terms, but United seemed to outmuscle Envision as the deal secured “materially lower payment rates for Envision” that resulted in lower earnings, S&P Global analysts wrote in a recent report.

In 2019, United began terminating its contracts with TeamHealth, which has a special focus on emergency medicine. The terminations affect two-thirds of TeamHealth’s contracts through July 1. The squeeze from United caused Moody’s to also change Team Health’s outlook to negative as an eventual agreement would likely mean lower reimbursement and lower profitability for company, the ratings agency said.

“They’re trying to lower their payments to providers. Period,” David Peknay, director at S&P Global, told Healthcare Dive.​

 

Data shows prices — not usage — is driving healthcare spending. Physician staffing firms are frequently used for ER services and the ER and outpatient surgery experienced the largest growth in spending between 2014 and 2018, according to data from the Health Care Cost Institute.

United said it had been negotiating with TeamHealth since 2017 and does not believe TeamHealth should be paid significantly more than other in-network ER doctors for the same services. United alleges its median rate for chest pains is $340. But if a TeamHealth doctor provides the care it charges $1,508.​

“As Team Health continues to see more aggressive and inappropriate behavior by payors to either reduce, delay, or deny payments, we have increased our investment in legal resources to address specific situations where we believe payor behavior is inappropriate or unlawful,” according to a statement provided to Healthcare Dive.

TeamHealth said it will not balance bill patients in the interim.

 

The pressure from payers, particularly United, is unlikely to relent. The payer insures more than 43 million people in the U.S. through its commercial and public plans.

“I don’t think anyone is safe from such abrupt terminations,” Kahn said. However, United disputes the characterization of abruptly terminating contracts and says in many cases it has been negotiating with providers to no avail.

Likely targets in the future may include firms with a focus on emergency services, which tend to be high-cost areas, S&P’s analysts said. In their latest report, Kahn and Peknay pointed to The Schumacher Group, which is the third-largest player in emergency staffing services. However, it commands a market share of less than 10%, far less than its rivals Envision and TeamHealth.

Smaller firms may not be able to weather the pressure as effectively as very large staffing organizations.

For those smaller groups, it may be wise for them “to sit tight on their cash or prepare from some pressure,” Kahn said.

Although some believe it may influence other payers to follow suit, Dean Ungar, vice president and senior analyst with Moody’s, said United may be uniquely placed to exert this pressure because it has its own group of providers it can use and considerable scale.

“They are better positioned to play hardball,” Ungar said.