Tennessee House Bill HB2374

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/30/24
• Refer: 3/5/24
• Refer: 3/12/24
• Refer: 3/26/24

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 8; Title 56; Title 63; Title 68 and Title 71, relative to payment for healthcare services.

Impact

The impact of HB2374 is significant, as it alters existing regulations to ensure that healthcare providers can obtain timely information regarding their payment structures. This change is expected to affect the practices of healthcare insurance companies and providers, compelling them to adopt more transparent operational protocols. By providing fee schedules, the bill is anticipated to help providers make informed decisions regarding their services and pricing strategies, potentially improving their financial management in the healthcare ecosystem.

Summary

House Bill 2374 aims to amend several sections of the Tennessee Code Annotated related to payment for healthcare services. Specifically, it mandates that healthcare providers must receive their fee schedules from payers within ten calendar days of a written request. This provision is designed to enhance transparency in healthcare pricing and facilitate better communication between providers and payers. By requiring fee schedules to be delivered in a standardized format, such as Microsoft Excel, the bill seeks to streamline the process for providers to access essential financial information necessary for their operations.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB2374 appears to be largely positive among advocates for healthcare reform and transparency. Supporters argue that it empowers healthcare providers by giving them access to essential financial information, thereby leveling the playing field in negotiations with insurers. However, there may also be concerns from some stakeholders about the implications for insurance companies and potential administrative burdens this regulation may impose on them.

Contention

Despite the general support for HB2374 focusing on transparency, there are points of contention regarding how the bill would be enforced and monitored. Some critics may express concerns about the compliance costs for insurers and the potential for disputes over the interpretation of 'fee schedule'. Additionally, questions about the effectiveness of such a requirement in achieving meaningful price transparency in the wider context of healthcare costs may arise, fueling debate on the bill's overall efficacy.