Healthcare pricing is a complicated minefield.
A recent RACmonitor article written by Govind Goyal described enforcement of the price transparency rule. At the Chicago-Kansas City HCCA Regional Conference, Linda Wawzenski, the Deputy Chief of the Civil Division in the Chicago U.S. Attorney’s Office, spent a significant portion of her talk discussing pricing-related issues.
I’ve never heard a U.S. Attorney spend any time talking about healthcare pricing, so I interpret this as indicating enforcement of the No Surprises Act, price transparency requirements, and other regulatory and common law issues related to healthcare pricing is about to increase. While the term fraud is used far too liberally when discussing healthcare issues, I think that healthcare pricing may be the area where that term can be legitimately used somewhat regularly.
Much of the problem is that determining the actual charge for most healthcare services is incredibly difficult. The figure that appears on a healthcare bill is often dramatically different from the amount anyone will actually pay for the service.
That’s a problem.
When you send a patient a charge for $500, but the patient has insurance and that insurance is contracted to pay $350 for the services, and you’re going to accept that $350 as payment in full, what was your charge for the service? Many people would say that the charge was $500 because that was the amount on the bill. But if you know you will take the $350 payment and call it a day, there is a pretty strong argument that your actual charge is $350. The NSA requires providers to give good faith estimates to patients who will not be using insurance to pay for a claim when they’re scheduling a service more than three days in advance. What price will you quote a patient in a situation where your billed charge is $500 but nearly every patient gets the service for 75 percent or less of that sum? This is not a hypothetical question. These are the sort of issues that arises every day in healthcare. If you are quoting them $350, why should an indemnity insurer be expected to pay more?
More than 20 years ago, a congressional committee investigated why uninsured patients often paid more than any other patient for a hospital service. To address that, some organizations offer cash discounts. Others will give uninsured patients a discount equal to the average discount given to insurers. Each solution comes with drawbacks. I encourage you to carefully reconsider all your pricing strategies and figure out whether they comply with various laws.
For example, it may be appealing to give a 10 percent discount to a patient who pays on the day of service. But it’s important to understand someone can characterize that as charging 10 percent interest for payment a day after the initial service. That sort of interest rate will violate state usury laws in most locations. It isn’t crazy to take that risk, but you need to understand it.
It’s common to rationalize certain prompt payments as meriting a discount because you don’t need to generate a bill to the patient. But many insurers include a provision in their contracts prohibiting you from charging the insurer for generating a bill. You need to make sure that the discount doesn’t result in you inadvertently violating some of your payer contracts.
The bottom line is that healthcare pricing is a complicated minefield, and many organizations haven’t carefully considered how discounts offered to one group may allow a different group to argue you’re committing healthcare fraud. This is a good time to take a step back and carefully review all your pricing policies to minimize the risk that you wind up being the subject of an investigative report, or worse yet, a government investigation.
Programming note: Listen to healthcare attorney David Glaser’s “Risky Business” report every Monday on Monitor Mondays, 10 Eastern.
It’s no secret to any of us that there has been quite a bit of recent disagreement between the opposing sides of the political aisle
A lawsuit filed last week by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) brought attention to a seldom-litigated allegation of fraud against the government: manipulation of
Please log in to your account to comment on this article.
Denials continue to delay reimbursement, increase administrative burden, and threaten financial stability across healthcare organizations. This essential webcast tackles the root causes—rising payer scrutiny, fragmented workflows, inconsistent documentation, and underused analytics—and offers proven, data-driven strategies to prevent and overturn denials. Attendees will gain practical tools to strengthen documentation and coding accuracy, engage clinicians effectively, and leverage predictive analytics and AI to identify risks before they impact revenue. Through real-world case examples and actionable guidance, this session empowers coding, CDI, and revenue cycle professionals to shift from reactive appeals to proactive denial prevention and revenue protection.
Sepsis remains one of the most frequently denied and contested diagnoses, creating costly revenue loss and compliance risks. In this webcast, Angela Comfort, DBA, MBA, RHIA, CDIP, CCS, CCS-P, provides practical, real-world strategies to align documentation with coding guidelines, reconcile Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions, and apply compliant queries. You’ll learn how to identify and address documentation gaps, strengthen provider engagement, and defend diagnoses against payer scrutiny—equipping you to protect reimbursement, improve SOI/ROM capture, and reduce audit vulnerability in this high-risk area.
Only ICD10monitor delivers what you need: updates on must-know changes associated with the FY26 IPPS, including new ICD-10-CM/PCS codes, CCs/MCCs, and MS-DRGs, plus insights, analysis and answers to your questions from two of the country’s most respected subject matter experts.
This third session in our 2026 IPPS Masterclass will feature a review of FY26 changes to the MS-DRG methodology and new technology add-on payments (NTAPs), presented by nationally recognized ICD-10 coding expert Christine Geiger, MA, RHIA, CCS, CRC, with bonus insights and analysis from Dr. James Kennedy.
Federal auditors are zeroing in on Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) and hospital rehab unit services, with OIG and CERT audits leading to millions in penalties—often due to documentation and administrative errors, not quality of care. Join compliance expert Michael Calahan, PA, MBA, to learn the five clinical “pillars” of IRF-PPS admissions, key documentation requirements, and real-life case lessons to help protect your revenue.
During this essential RACmonitor webcast Michael Calahan, PA, MBA Certified Compliance Officer, will clarify the rules, dispel common misconceptions, and equip you with practical strategies to code, document, and bill high-risk split/shared, incident-to & critical care E/M services with confidence. Don’t let audit risks or revenue losses catch your organization off guard — learn exactly what federal auditors are looking for and how to ensure your documentation and reporting stand up to scrutiny.
Learn how to navigate the proposed elimination of the Inpatient-Only list. Gain strategies to assess admission status, avoid denials, protect compliance, and address impacts across Medicare and non-Medicare payors. Essential insights for hospitals.
RACmonitor is proud to welcome back Dr. Ronald Hirsch, one of his most requested webcasts. In this highly anticipated session, Dr. Hirsch will break down the complex Two Midnight Rule Medicare regulations, translating them into clear, actionable guidance. He’ll walk you through the basics of the rule, offer expert interpretation, and apply the rule to real-world clinical scenarios—so you leave with greater clarity, confidence, and the tools to ensure compliance.
Happy National Doctor’s Day! Learn how to get a complimentary webcast on ‘Decoding Social Admissions’ as a token of our heartfelt appreciation! Click here to learn more →
CYBER WEEK IS HERE! Don’t miss your chance to get 20% off now until Dec. 2 with code CYBER24
