The CAB applauded the Eastern Texas District Court judge’s “sense decision”, noting that insurers have already used the “misapplication” of the law to increase their profits by cutting provider networks. The decision affects only the payer-provider dispute resolution process and not other provisions that protect patients from surprise medical bills, noted CAB Board of Chancellors Chairman Howard Fleishon, MD.
“Although this case is distinct from [the lawsuit] filed against the federal government by the ACR, the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the American College of Emergency Physicians, we hope this decision is the first in a series of decisions that will compel agencies to implement the law without surprise exactly as Congress intended,” he said in a Feb. 24 statement.
The CAB also pointed out that Judge Kernodle’s order does not apply nationwide and that the federal government can still appeal. “It is unclear how this will affect our legal action or the enforcement of the rule but, at this time, the offending provisions of the rule are rescinded,” the college said in its update.
The American Medical Association – which filed its own complaint alongside the American Hospital Association and others – also voiced support for Texas’ decision on Thursday.
Meanwhile, AHIP, the nation’s largest trade association for health insurance companies, criticized the decision on Wednesday. He accused private equity-backed suppliers and others who have “long profited” from sending surprise bills “of doing everything they can” to protect their earnings. Chairman and CEO Matt Eyles called the court’s decision “misguided” and said it would lead to higher healthcare costs and premiums.
“It is unconscionable that providers fight to weaken protections for patients who deserve protection from surprise medical bills, and exploit the arbitration process to inflate their bottom line,” he said in a statement. communicated. “AHIP continues to fully support the administration in its defense of the No Surprise Act and the Interim Final Rule, and we will continue to support the government’s defense of the rules in other courts.”