BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 533 Page A Date of Hearing: April 21, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH Rob Bonta, Chair AB 533 (Bonta) - As Amended April 15, 2015 SUBJECT: Health care coverage: out-of-network coverage. SUMMARY: This bill establishes requirements for the payment of non-contracting individual health professionals when a health care service plan enrollee obtains services from the non-contracting professional in a contracting health facility, as specified. Specifically, this bill: 1) Prohibits, when an enrollee or insured individual in a health care service plan or health insurance policy, who receives care at a contracting health facility from a non-contracting individual health professional, to pay more than the in-network cost sharing. 2) Requires a health plan or insurer to inform the non-contracting individual health professional of the in-network cost sharing of the enrollee or insured upon time of payment. 3) Requires a non-contracting individual health professional to refund any amount collected from the enrollee or insured that is greater that the in-network AB 533 Page B cost sharing; and, requires the refundable amount to accrue interest, as specified, if it is not returned to the enrollee or insured within prescribed time limits. 4) Prohibits a health plan or insurer from paying a non-contracting individual health professional if the professional has advanced the amount owed by the enrollee or insured to collections, prior to payment by the plan, as specified. 5) Provides that any cost sharing paid by the enrollee or insured provided by the non-contracting individual health professional shall count towards the annual out-of-pocket expenses limit and the enrollee's deductible. 6) Allows an enrollee or insured to voluntarily consent to the use of a non-contracting individual health professional contingent on specified consent and cost estimate requirements. EXISTING LAW: 1) Establishes the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975 under the administration and enforcement of the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC), and requires a health care service plan to reimburse claims, as specified. 2) Requires a health care service plan to reimburse providers for emergency services and care until the care results in the stabilization of the enrollee, and does not require prior authorization as a prerequisite for the provision of emergency services and care to stabilize the enrollee's emergency medical condition. AB 533 Page C 3) Prohibits a health care service plan subscriber or enrollee from being liable to the provider for any sums owed by the plan under contract with health care service provider. 4) Requires DMHC to adopt regulations that ensure a health care service plan has adopted a dispute resolution mechanism for non-contracting providers for purposes of resolving billing and claims disputes. 5) Provides for the regulation of health insurers by the California Department of Insurance (CDI). 6) Requires a group or individual insurance policy issued, amended or renewed on or after January 1, 2014, that provides or covers any benefit with respect to services in an emergency department of a hospital to cover emergency services by a nonparticipating health care provider with or without prior authorization. FISCAL EFFECT: This bill has not yet been analyzed by a fiscal committee. COMMENTS: 1) PURPOSE OF THIS BILL. The author states that this bill will protect patients who do the right thing by seeking care in an in-network facility, only to later receive a surprise bill from an out-of-network provider that had been called in to provide service. The author states that surprise bills cost consumers substantial sums of money, AB 533 Page D placing an undeserved and unreasonable financial burden upon them. The author asserts that consumers should not be placed in the middle of billing conflicts and disputes between out-of-network providers and plans or insurers, particularly when they sought in-network care but were seen by an out-of-network provider through no fault of their own. The author contends that while California has been at the forefront of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act implementation, we need to catch up to other states like New York which have taken the lead in fully protecting consumers from surprise bills. The author concludes by stating that it is the state's responsibility to ensure full consumer protection for all of our patients, and this bill is a critical measure to ensure patients are safeguarded from hidden costs unfairly imposed upon them when they have followed the rules. 2) BACKGROUND a) Balance billing and regulations. Balance billing is the provider practice of billing a patient for the difference between the provider's charge and the amount allowed by the patient's health plan or insurer. Current state and federal regulations prohibit providers from balance billing qualified Medicare and Medicaid (known as Medi-Cal in California) beneficiaries. In addition, in-network providers may not balance bill patients who receive services within the network of their health care service plan or health insurance. Out-of-network emergency service physicians are a special case; they may balance bill if the patient is enrolled in a plan managed by CDI, however they may not balance bill managed care enrollees, which are patients enrolled in DMHC-regulated plans. This discrepancy is based on executive action ordered by the Administration. AB 533 Page E In 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-13-06, requiring DMHC to protect consumers from balance billing. The DMHC regulations were established in 2008 and have been heavily debated in court. In the landmark case of Prospect Medical Group, Inc. vs. Northridge Emergency Medical Group of 2009, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that billing disputes over emergency medical care must be resolved solely between the emergency room doctors and the managed care plan, and that emergency room doctors may not bill a patient for the disputed amount. Since then, DMHC has fined individual providers and taken legal actions against others on the grounds they balance billed consumers illegally. b) Independent Dispute Resolution Process (IDRP). Executive Order S-13-06 also required DMHC to implement a "fair, fast and, inexpensive IDRP to avoid placing enrollees in the middle of payment disputes between health plans and providers" and ensure non-contracted providers are reimbursed at the reasonable and customary level for the services they provided. These dispute resolution processes are currently nonbinding and use a decision process that is similar to the "baseball style" model of arbitration, which does not provide a process to compromise on a rate, but rather requires one rate or another to be granted their claim by the arbitrator. During the IDRP process, an External Reviewer is required to decide whether the provider's billed amount or the payer's paid amount, is most representative of the reasonable and customary value of the emergency services that were rendered. The IDRP External Reviewer cannot split the difference between the amounts proposed by the two parties or choose an amount outside them. The IDRP does allow a hospital provider to elect to lower its billed amount in connection with the hospital's IDRP AB 533 Page F submission. c) Reasonable and customary rates. DMHC regulations establish a six-prong test, known as the "Gould criteria" (based on Gould vs. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, 1992), for determining the reasonable and customary value for non-contracted parties in claims settlements. These criteria include: the provider's training, qualifications, and length of time in practice; the nature of the services provided; the fees usually charged by the provider; prevailing provider rates charged in the general geographic area in which the services were rendered; other aspects of the economics of the medical provider's practice that are relevant; and any unusual circumstances in the case. However, the regulations are silent on setting specific reimbursement rates. d) Policies in other states. A 2013 study done by the Kaiser Family Foundation identifies 13 states which have prohibited out-of-network providers from balance billing managed care enrollees<1>. Protections vary significantly from one state to another. For example, some states, such as Maryland and Connecticut, provide state protections for all covered benefits, whereas others provide limited protection, such as Pennsylvania and Illinois, which cover only emergency services and ambulatory services, respectively. Delaware and Florida both have a formal dispute resolution system available to resolve billing conflicts and disputes between providers and plans. New York has the most comprehensive regulations regarding balance billing. The state's 2014 legislation bans balance bills for out-of-network emergency care, requires ------------------------ <1> "State Restriction Against Providers Balance Billing Managed Care Enrollees," Kaiser Family Foundation, 2015. AB 533 Page G insurers to allow patients see out-of-network doctors at regular costs when the network is unable meet a patient's needs, and sets new rules for insurers and providers to disclose network status online or before a procedure. The New York law also allows for an independent arbitration on payment disputes and requests to see out-of-network providers. 1) SUPPORT. Health Access California, the sponsor of the bill, states surprise medical bills are contributing to the growing problem of consumer medical debt, a significant cause of personal bankruptcy. The sponsor maintains that surprise billing practices are a result of both inadequate provider networks and a lack of disclosure regarding provider status and billing to consumers prior to procedures taking place. The sponsor asserts that health plans and providers should not involve consumers in business disputes. Supporters of the introduced version of the bill state that consumers who follow their plan's rules and use in-network facilities should not be surprised by out-of-network charges from providers who grant care at in-network facilities; the patient should only be responsible for what he or she would have paid for in-network care. The California Association of Health Plans, Aetna, and Association of California Life & Health Insurance Companies have a support if amended position based on an older version of the bill, and state that the easiest solution for balance billing is for doctors to contract with health plans and carriers; at the very least, the consumer should not be put in the middle when providers do not contact. These entities state they will support the bill if amended to include language expressly prohibiting balance billing, which will strengthen consumer protection. AB 533 Page H 2) OPPOSITION. The California American College of Emergency Physicians and some specialty provider groups are opposed to the bill, based on the introduced language of the bill, stating that patients and providers should be protected from health plans and insurers who do not have adequate networks, by imposing a payment standard on health plans and insurers set by an independent, unbiased, non-profit entity. The opposition further states a fair dispute resolution system should be established for parties to appeal payment amounts. The opposition argues the bill provides health plans and insurers more opportunities to collect premiums from patients, not provide the care they have agreed give, and pay physicians arbitrary amounts. The California Medical Association and California Society of Anesthesiologists have an opposed unless amended position based on a previous version of the bill, and state the bill undermines current law which requires insurers and plans to provide adequate provider networks because the provisions create disincentives for plans and insurers from negotiating fair payment arrangements and creating robust networks. These opposing groups state an efficient, equitable dispute resolution mechanism will guide parties towards a reasonable rate of services and are opposed unless the bill is amended to establish a such a process. 3) POLICY CONSIDERATIONS. This bill removes the patient from circumstances in which there is a disagreement between the out-of-network individual health professional and the plan or insurer on the fair amount for payment; however the bill is silent on how the two parties should come to an agreement on that amount. In order to be more consistent with current DMHC regulations on a similar issue, the committee may wish to consider the establishment of a binding, independent dispute resolution process that is AB 533 Page I similar to the current structure set forth by DMHC for non-contracting providers for emergency services. A binding process would reduce litigation on billing conflicts and disputes. In addition, the Committee may wish to establish specified criteria in statute for the independent arbitrator to use that will be equal and fair to the health care professional and the health care service plan or insurer. The author and sponsor state that the goal of the legislation is to keep consumers out of business disputes between health plans or insurers and individual health professionals. The most recent amendments require any overpayment by the provider to be refunded however the way the language is written, the onus remains on the patient to realize that they have been balanced bill and that the individual health professional has been overpaid by the health plan or insurer. The author may wish to amend the bill later in the legislative process such that the responsibility lies solely between the health plan or insurer and the provider. 4) SUGGESTED TECHNICAL AMENDMENT. This bill allows for voluntary consent to the use of a non-contracting individual health professional, if the insured or enrollee consents to both the use of the non-contracting individual health professional and the estimated additional cost for the services provided. The language is currently vague as to whether the enrollee or insured must agree to actual payment of the estimated cost or simply its value. The bill should be amended to clarify. The Committee may suggest to the author the following language: Section 1371.9 of the Health and Safety Code: AB 533 Page J (d) An enrollee may voluntarily consent to the use of a noncontracting individual health professional. For purposes of this section, consent shall be voluntary if at least 24 hours in advance of the receipt of services, the enrollee is provided a written estimate of the cost of care by the noncontracting individual health professional and the enrollee consents in writing to both the use of a noncontracting individual health professional and payment of the estimated additional cost for the services to be provided by the noncontracting individual health professional. The consent shall inform the enrollee that the cost of the services of the noncontracting individual health professional will not accrue to the limit on annual out-of-pocket expenses or the enrollee's deductible, if any. Section 10112.8 of the Insurance Code: (d) An insured may voluntarily consent to the use of a noncontracting individual health professional. For purposes of this section, consent shall be voluntary if at least 24 hours in advance of the receipt of services, the insured is provided a written estimate of the cost of care by the noncontracting individual health professional and the insured consents in writing to both the use of a noncontracting individual health professional and payment of the estimated additional cost for the services to be provided by the noncontracting individual health professional. The consent shall inform the insured that the cost of the services of the noncontracting individual health professional will not accrue to the limit on annual out-of-pocket expenses or the insured's deductible, if any. AB 533 Page K REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support Health Access California (sponsor) AARP (prior version) AFSCME (prior version) America's Health Insurance Plans (prior version) Anthem Blue Cross (prior version) California Black Health Network (prior version) California Labor Federation (prior version) California Pan-Ethnic Health Network (prior version) AB 533 Page L California Primary Care Association (prior version) California School Employees Association (prior version) California Teachers Association (prior version) CALPIRG (prior version) Consumers Union (prior version) LIUNA Locals 777 and 792 (prior version) National Health Law Program (prior version) SEIU California (prior version) Opposition California Academy of Emergency Physicians (prior version) California Radiological Society (prior version) California Society of Pathologists (prior version) AB 533 Page M Analysis Prepared by:An-Chi Tsou / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097