Neurointerventional payment for out-of-network mechanical thrombectomy in the era of the No Surprises Act

Jonathan A Grossberg,Eric W Christensen,James M Milburn,Guilherme Dabus,Richard E Heller 3rd,Joshua A Hirsch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jnis-2024-022202

2024-10-01

Abstract:Background: Congress enacted the No Surprises Act (NSA) in 2021. The NSA relies on the ability for providers to appeal their out-of-network (OON) payment through an arbitration process known as Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR). This study was designed to evaluate the effective access to IDR for mechanical thrombectomy (MT). Methods: This study uses a simulation to model the likelihood that neurointerventionalists have financially viable access to the NSA IDR process to seek adequate payment for MT OON claims. Results: When evaluating professional claims, for only batches of four or more claims, would the expected payment recovery exceed the expected IDR costs. For global claims (both professional and technical components), a batch size of two claims would be required for the expected payment recovery to exceed expected IDR costs.For the 1000 simulations at large MT centers (300 MT annually), there were no instances where it would have been financially viable to submit professional-only OON claims to the IDR process. For global claims, it would have been financially viable to submit to IDR for only 13.2% of these claims. For smaller stroke centers, there were also no instances where it would have been financially viable to submit professional-only claims. For global claims, it would have been financially viable for only 3.3-6.1% of claims. Conclusions: The NSA process was designed to protect patients from unexpected bills following non-elective medical services. Given the emergent nature of many neuroendovascular cases and the lack of access to the IDR process as this model illustrates, the field is at risk for under-reimbursement due to NSA legislation.