You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to

Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks.


  • ePAPER

You have read of premium articles.

Get unlimited access to all of our breaking news, in-depth coverage and bonus content- exclusively for subscribers. Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks


Welcome to

This subscriber-only site gives you exclusive access to breaking news, in-depth coverage, exclusive interactives and bonus content.

You can read free articles of your choice a month that are only available on

Emergency room ‘surprise bills’ hurt patients, need policy solution

The rapidly rising costs of insurance premiums emerged as a dominant focus after the presidential election. However, there is another major problem in the health care financing infrastructure that does not seem to get enough policy discussion: “surprise bills” sent directly to patients following care by physicians who may be working at an in-network facility but who are not actually in the patient’s insurance network.

Imagine going to your local emergency room, knowing that the hospital is considered in-network by your insurance company, then a few weeks later receiving a bill for thousands of dollars to pay the out-of-network physician. You might think it was a mistake. You would be wrong.

Hospitals generally contract with a group of emergency physicians to staff their emergency departments and also contract with insurance companies to provide in-network coverage in their emergency departments. The emergency physicians themselves, however, contract individually with the insurance companies, resulting in gaps of in-network coverage where the emergency room visit itself is covered, but the physician providing care is not. Patients only discover this gap by receiving a bill for the care provided by the out-of-network emergency physician.

According to one study, 22 percent – more than 1 in 5 – of emergency department visits at an in-network facility involved out-of-network physicians. In McAllen, 89 percent received “surprise bills.” In other places, such as South Bend, Indiana, almost nobody received surprise bills.

In 2014, Texas studied this problem, finding that among the three largest health insurers by market share in the state, between 41 and 68 percent of dollars billed at in-network facilities were billed as out-of-network emergency room physician services. In addition, between 21 and 59 percent of in-network hospitals had no in-network emergency room physicians, meaning that for some insured patients in Texas, a visit to more than half of the emergency rooms in their network would likely result in a bill for out-of-network care.

But before we start laying all of the blame at the feet of emergency physicians, emergency room departments are required by law to see and treat everybody in need, thanks to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which guarantees access to emergency medical care, but not specifically requiring insurers to pay for that care. Insurers know this, thus making it difficult for emergency physicians to negotiate effectively with insurers. The concern is that without the option of “balance billing,” these physicians will be subjected to increasingly predatory pricing from insurance companies who will hold all of the leverage.

But bankrupting patients cannot be the solution. That is unacceptable and should not be tolerated.

Insurers point the finger at physicians and hospitals, while physicians point it right back at insurers. Though there is not just one villain here who can take all of the blame, there is also a lack of heroes in this story.

Out-of-network emergency department billing is not a problem that can be solved on its own or by any one group within the health care financial system. This is the type of problem that requires policy.

A recent New York Times article pointed to U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Austin, who introduced legislation in 2015 to help address the issue but was met with indifference from his colleagues, despite Texas’ being one of the worst offending states. It is up to all of us to now replace that apathy with a distinct call to arms that catches the attention of our representatives.

California has already passed a bipartisan bill to protect patients against surprise out-of-network medical bills. Patients who receive care from in-network facilities in that state would only have to pay in-network cost sharing. A few other states, such as Florida, have similar laws.

Texas allows patients to participate in a mediation process to reduce balance bills by working with physicians and insurers, but the process is limited to certain types of bills and plan types, and the billed amount must exceed $500 per provider to be eligible. The system is underutilized and does not protect patients as well as it could.

Texans cannot remain at risk of unexpectedly getting stuck with a surprise out-of-network physician bill after visiting an emergency department. This threat should now be considered an emergency.

Dr. Christopher Moriates is the assistant dean for health care value at the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas. Dr. Victoria Valencia is the assistant director for health care value at the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas.

Reader Comments ...

Next Up in Opinion

Letters to the Editor: February 28, 2017
Letters to the Editor: February 28, 2017

Re: Feb. 15 article, “Parents: Medicaid shift hurts severely disabled children.” Please accept this nomination for state Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Flower Mound, as legislator of the year for outstanding service representing the true interests of Texas Republicans. Nelson merits kudos for turning Medicaid support for disabled children into a privatized...
A black leader questions, ‘Haven’t we talked enough?’
A black leader questions, ‘Haven’t we talked enough?’

You’ll excuse Nelson Linder if his heart is heavy and his mind is weary. Consoling the families of African-Americans shot and killed by Austin police exacts a toll like that. He’s been doing it for 17 years as president of the Austin NAACP, and on Thursday, Linder found himself in that wrenching situation yet once more, meeting with the...
Commentary: Trump order mucks up the regulatory process
Commentary: Trump order mucks up the regulatory process

President Trump’s recently issued executive order requiring agencies to trash two regulations for every one that they adopt is another ham-handed attempt to deliver on a campaign promise that will — like the recent immigration order — eventually prove unworkable. In the meantime it will prevent federal agencies from writing and enforcing...
Mona Charen: What’s up with rape in Sweden?
Mona Charen: What’s up with rape in Sweden?

President Donald Trump was more right than wrong about Sweden. Fox News was slightly misleading. Fox News and, more particularly, certain right-wing websites have been conjuring the “Idyllic Sweden destroyed by Muslim refugees” line, complete with “no go” zones, Sharia law and terror attacks. That’s an exaggeration, but...
Why the GOP really hates Obamacare

Across the country, Republicans have been facing crowds demanding to know how they will protect the 20 million Americans who gained health insurance thanks to the Affordable Care Act, and will lose it if the act is repealed. And after all that inveighing against the evils of Obamacare, it turns out that they’ve got nothing. Instead, they&rsquo...
More Stories