Proposals to limit payments for involuntary out-of-network care (care in situations in which a patient does not have the option of selecting a hospital in his or her health plan's network) are being debated in the New Jersey state legislature. This report analyzes the role of such payments in New Jersey hospitals' financial performance and simulates the direct and indirect effects of policies to limit charges for involuntary out-of-network care.
Evaluating the Impact of Policies to Regulate Involuntary Out-of-Network Charges on New Jersey Hospitals
Download Free Electronic Document
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PDF file | 0.3 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
Research Questions
- How dependent are New Jersey hospitals on out-of-network payments?
- What would be the impact of New Jersey Bill A1952 and similar policies on hospital finances?
- How would an all-payer blended rate, similar to the payment model in Maryland, affect different payers?
Policymakers must balance the complex and sometimes conflicting objectives of ensuring access to care, limiting the financial burden on patients, and controlling overall costs. States differ in how they handle involuntary out-of-network charges — i.e., payment for care when a patient does not have the option of selecting a hospital in his or her health plan's network. New Jersey's current regulations emphasize patient protection, in that patients are only responsible for the portion of the cost that they would have incurred for in-network care, and health plans must pay the remainder of the provider's charges. This policy is seen as contentious by health plans, who argue that they have been made responsible for paying whatever charges a hospital submits, and proposals to limit payments for involuntary out-of-network care are being debated in the state legislature. This report seeks to inform the current debate (as of October 2016) by analyzing the role of out-of-network payments in New Jersey hospitals' financial performance and simulating the effect of policies to limit charges for involuntary out-of-network care. The authors' estimates suggest that implementing New Jersey Bill A1952, which proposes a limit of between 90 and 200 percent of Medicare rates for involuntary out-of-network hospital care, would have reduced payments for hospital care by commercial plans by between 6 and 10 percent during 2010 through 2014. Assuming no change in operating expenses and no recoupment of lost out-of-network revenues, the cap would have led to an operating loss at between 48 and 70 percent of hospitals.
Key Findings
Effects of Caps on Payment for Involuntary Out-of-Network Services
- Among hospitals in New Jersey, revenues from involuntary out-of-network services accounted for less than 20 percent of commercial revenues but almost 40 percent of profits.
- The authors' estimates suggest that implementing New Jersey Bill A1952, which proposes a limit of between 90 and 200 percent of Medicare rates for involuntary out-of-network hospital care, would have reduced payments for hospital care by commercial plans by between 6 and 10 percent during 2010 through 2014. Assuming no change in operating expenses and no recoupment of lost out-of-network revenues, the cap would have led to an operating loss at between 48 and 70 percent of hospitals.
- The authors also estimated that a 1-percent reduction of out-of-network rates because of the caps would reduce negotiated in-network rates by half a percent, as it would weaken hospitals' bargaining position.
All-Payer Blended Rates
- An alternative payment model to reduce high charges for involuntary out-of-network services could be the approach used in Maryland, under which a uniform rate is set for all payers, with a 6-percent discount to public payers. A 14-percent discount for public payers relative to commercial payers would make this model budget-neutral for public payers and hold hospital margins constant but would increase payments by commercial insurers by about 10 percent.
Research conducted by
The research underlying this paper was sponsored by Carepoint Health, Inc., and conducted in RAND Health Advisory Services, the consulting practice of RAND Health.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Research report series. RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.