Apply Now
Get in Touch
IONM 42026 5

How Hospitals Structure IONM Contracts to Protect Patients from Surprise Balance Bills

/ News / By

A hospital reduces the risk of surprise balance billing from intraoperative neuromonitoring by writing the protection into the service agreement rather than relying on federal law to supply it. The three terms that do most of the work are a contractual prohibition on balance billing the hospital’s patients regardless of the monitoring provider’s network status, an obligation to pursue and maintain participation with the hospital’s major payers, and a hold harmless provision that makes the provider responsible for resolving any patient billing dispute that arises from its own claims. Federal protections under the No Surprises Act cover many of these situations, but they do not cover all patients, all plans, or all circumstances, and the question of exactly how they apply to IONM is less settled than it is for anesthesia or radiology.

Contract language covers the gap. Statute alone does not.

Why IONM produces surprise bills in the first place

The mechanism is structural rather than accidental. In a typical monitored case, the hospital is in network with the patient’s plan and the surgeon is in network with the patient’s plan. The monitoring provider is a separate entity that bills separately, and it is frequently out of network. The patient does not select it, does not meet the person performing the service, and in many cases does not learn that a third organization was involved until a claim appears.

Two further features make the exposure worse than it looks. Monitoring is usually arranged by the surgeon or the facility as part of case planning, so the choice is made by clinicians on clinical grounds without reference to the patient’s network. And the professional and technical components may be billed by different entities, meaning a single case can generate more than one out-of-network claim.

That combination, a service the patient cannot choose and did not know about, delivered at an in-network facility, is precisely the fact pattern the No Surprises Act was written to address.

What the No Surprises Act actually prohibits

The No Surprises Act, enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, prohibits out-of-network providers from billing or holding liable a patient for more than the in-network cost-sharing amount for covered non-emergency services delivered during a visit to an in-network health care facility, unless notice and consent requirements are met. Where balance billing is prohibited, patient cost sharing is limited to in-network levels.

Three limits on that protection matter for IONM contracting.

Facility type. The protections for non-emergency services apply to visits at hospitals, hospital outpatient departments, critical access hospitals, and ambulatory surgical centers. CMS states plainly that they do not extend to other facility types such as urgent care centers. Monitoring performed in a covered facility is within scope; the analysis changes elsewhere.

Plan type. The protections apply to people enrolled in group health plans, group or individual coverage, and Federal Employees Health Benefits plans. They do not apply to Medicare, Medicaid, Indian Health Services, Veterans Affairs health care, or TRICARE, each of which has its own protections. They also do not reach short-term limited duration insurance, excepted benefits, or retiree-only plans. A hospital serving a population with meaningful short-term plan enrollment has patients the federal rule does not protect.

Out-of-network facilities. CMS is explicit that the federal balance billing prohibitions do not apply to non-emergency services provided by out-of-network providers during visits to out-of-network facilities. In that setting a provider does not need consent to bill the patient directly.

The ancillary services question, and why it is not as settled as vendors imply

The notice and consent exception is the mechanism by which a provider can ask a patient to waive these protections. It is unavailable for a defined list of ancillary services, and for those services a provider is always prohibited from balance billing. CMS states the list as:

  • Items and services related to emergency medicine, anesthesiology, pathology, radiology, and neonatology, whether provided by a physician or non-physician practitioner
  • Items and services provided by assistant surgeons, hospitalists, and intensivists
  • Diagnostic services, including radiology and laboratory services
  • Items and services provided by an out-of-network provider if there is no in-network provider who can provide the item or service at the in-network health care facility

Intraoperative neuromonitoring is not named. That is the crux, and it is worth stating carefully rather than asserting a convenient answer.

Two provisions plausibly reach IONM. The first is “diagnostic services.” IONM is a diagnostic activity in the ordinary sense of the word, and the list is not phrased as exhaustive, but the illustrative examples given are radiology and laboratory services, and a hospital should not assume a payer, a provider, or a court will read the category to include neuromonitoring without argument. The second, and the stronger of the two in most real cases, is the final provision: if there is no in-network provider who can supply the service at that facility, the notice and consent exception is unavailable regardless of category. In a hospital where the only monitoring provider available is out of network, that condition is often satisfied on its face.

There is also a separate provision that operates independently of the ancillary list. Notice and consent cannot be used where items or services are furnished as a result of unforeseen, urgent medical needs arising at the time the item or service is furnished. Monitoring added intraoperatively because a case became more complex than planned falls naturally within that description.

The practical takeaway for a hospital is not to resolve this question. It is to structure the agreement so that the answer does not matter. If the contract prohibits balance billing outright, the hospital does not need a legal opinion on whether IONM is a diagnostic service.

Why notice and consent rarely works for IONM even when it is permitted

Set the ancillary question aside and assume, for the sake of argument, that a monitoring provider is entitled to seek a waiver. Two federal requirements make that difficult to execute properly in this service line.

First, the notice and consent form must explicitly identify the individual provider expected to furnish the service. CMS has stated that listing a provider group is not permitted. In IONM, the specific neurophysiologist assigned to a case and the specific supervising professional who will oversee it are frequently not known until shortly before the procedure, and assignments change. A form naming the company rather than the individual is not a valid waiver.

Second, the notice must be furnished within defined timeframes ahead of the service, using the standard federal documents, and signed documents must be retained for at least seven years. A consent obtained in a pre-operative holding area on the morning of surgery is unlikely to satisfy the timing requirements, and a hospital that permits it is inviting a complaint it will be answering rather than the vendor.

A monitoring provider that routinely seeks waivers for scheduled cases is telling the hospital something useful about its billing model. That is worth noticing during diligence.

Contract terms that actually close the gap

These are the provisions to negotiate. They are listed in rough order of how much protection they deliver per sentence of contract language.

No balance billing, by contract, regardless of network status. The provider agrees that it will not bill, and will not permit any affiliated billing entity to bill, any patient of the hospital for amounts exceeding applicable in-network cost sharing, whatever the provider’s network status and whatever the patient’s plan type. This single term resolves the ancillary services ambiguity, covers Medicare Advantage and self-funded and short-term plans alike, and does not require anyone to litigate a definition.

Network participation obligations. The provider will apply for and use commercially reasonable efforts to maintain participation with the hospital’s major payers, will notify the hospital in writing within a defined number of days of any change in network status, and will report participation status by payer on a stated schedule. Without a reporting obligation the hospital learns about a termination from a patient.

Hold harmless and indemnification for billing disputes. The provider is responsible for resolving patient billing inquiries and complaints arising from its own claims, at its expense, and indemnifies the hospital for costs arising from the provider’s billing practices. Name a response time.

Waiver of the notice and consent process. The provider agrees it will not seek patient consent to waive balance billing protections for services furnished at the hospital. This is cleaner than debating whether it would be permitted to.

Disclosure responsibility, assigned in writing. Federal rules require providers and facilities to disclose patient protections against balance billing, and permit a written agreement under which the facility makes the disclosure instead of the provider. Decide which party does it and put it in the agreement rather than discovering later that each assumed the other had.

Provider directory data obligations. Providers with payer contracts must submit directory information at the start and end of network agreements, when material changes occur, and on request. Where a patient relied on an inaccurate directory and paid more than in-network cost sharing, the provider must reimburse the full excess plus interest. Requiring the provider to warrant the accuracy of its directory submissions puts that risk where it belongs.

Continuity of care cooperation. When a contractual relationship ends and changes network status, providers must accept the previously agreed payment amount for a continuing care patient for up to 90 days after the patient is notified, and continue to follow the plan’s policies and quality standards. Build the notification workflow into the agreement so this operates without improvisation.

Good faith estimate cooperation. For uninsured and self-pay patients, the estimate must include expected charges for items and services reasonably expected to be furnished in conjunction with the primary service, including those from other providers. A hospital cannot produce a complete estimate without the monitoring provider’s cooperation. Obligate it, with a turnaround time.

Audit rights. The hospital may audit the provider’s patient billing for its cases, on notice, with a remediation obligation for any balance billing found. A term nobody can verify is a term nobody follows.

Questions to ask before signing

  • What percentage of our patient population would your organization be out of network for, by payer, today?
  • Will you agree in writing not to balance bill our patients regardless of network status?
  • Do you ever seek patient consent to waive No Surprises Act protections? Under what circumstances?
  • Who answers the phone when our patient calls about your bill, and what is your response time?
  • How many patient billing complaints did you receive per thousand cases last year, and how were they resolved?
  • Will you provide your standard patient billing disclosure and a sample patient statement for our review?
  • Are the professional and technical components billed by the same entity? If not, does every entity in the chain accept these terms?

That last question is the one most often skipped and the one most likely to produce a surprise.

If you already have an agreement in place

Existing contracts can usually be amended more easily than they can be replaced, and the balance billing term is a reasonable thing to raise at any point rather than waiting for renewal. In the meantime, three diagnostics are worth running. Pull any patient billing complaints from the last twelve months and sort them by service line. Ask revenue cycle whether monitoring claims for your cases are adjudicating in network or out. And check whether your current agreement says anything at all about patient billing, since many IONM agreements address payment between the parties and are silent on what the provider may bill the patient.

Where SpecialtyCare fits

SpecialtyCare’s IONM service is delivered by more than 500 employed surgical neurophysiologists across 42 states, supporting more than 115,000 patients each year, with approximately 50 employed physicians who have experience across more than 10,000 procedures. SpecialtyCare is accredited and certified by The Joint Commission and publishes a Marketing Code of Ethics.

On billing specifically, SpecialtyCare states that it sets an ethical standard for transparent pricing and billing practices. A hospital evaluating any provider, including this one, should ask for that commitment in contract language rather than accepting it as a marketing position, and should expect a provider that means it to agree without difficulty. The terms above are the form that agreement should take.

If you are drafting or renegotiating an IONM agreement, contact SpecialtyCare and ask specifically how patient billing obligations are handled in the standard agreement.

Frequently asked questions

Does the No Surprises Act prohibit balance billing for intraoperative neuromonitoring? In most cases involving a covered plan and a covered in-network facility, yes, but the reasoning matters. The Act prohibits out-of-network providers from billing patients above in-network cost sharing for non-emergency services during visits to in-network hospitals, hospital outpatient departments, critical access hospitals, and ambulatory surgical centers, unless notice and consent requirements are met. IONM is not specifically named in the federal list of ancillary services for which consent can never be sought, though two provisions in that list plausibly reach it, including the provision covering any service where no in-network provider is available at the facility. Because the categorization is not explicitly settled for IONM, hospitals should address it by contract rather than rely on the statutory analysis.

Which patients are not protected by the No Surprises Act? The federal protections apply to group health plans, group or individual coverage, and Federal Employees Health Benefits plans. They do not apply to Medicare, Medicaid, Indian Health Services, Veterans Affairs health care, or TRICARE, which have separate protections, and they do not apply to short-term limited duration insurance, excepted benefits such as stand-alone dental or vision coverage, or retiree-only plans. Federal protections also do not apply to non-emergency services at out-of-network facilities.

Can an IONM provider ask a patient to sign a waiver of surprise billing protections? Only in limited circumstances, and several federal requirements make it impractical in this service line. Notice and consent can never be used for ancillary services or for services arising from unforeseen urgent medical needs at the time they are furnished. Where it is permitted, the form must name the individual provider expected to furnish the service, since CMS has stated that listing a provider group is not allowed, and specific timing, format, and seven-year retention requirements apply. Because IONM staffing assignments are often finalized close to the procedure date, a compliant waiver is difficult to execute.

What is the single most important term in an IONM contract for patient billing protection? A contractual commitment that the provider will not balance bill the hospital’s patients above applicable in-network cost sharing, regardless of the provider’s network status and regardless of the patient’s plan type. It resolves the ancillary services ambiguity, extends protection to plans federal law does not reach, and is enforceable by the hospital without reference to regulatory interpretation.

Who is responsible for telling patients about their balance billing protections? Both providers and facilities generally have disclosure obligations, which include posting the information publicly, posting it on a public website where applicable, and furnishing it to the patient by the time payment is requested or a claim is submitted. Federal rules allow a written agreement under which the facility makes the disclosure instead of the provider. Patients do not need to sign anything to acknowledge receipt of this disclosure, which is a different document from the notice and consent form used to seek a waiver.

What happens if a patient relied on an inaccurate provider directory? Providers and facilities that have or have had a payer contract must submit directory information at defined points, including at the beginning and termination of a network agreement, when material changes occur, and on request. Where a patient relied on incorrect directory information and paid a bill exceeding the in-network cost sharing amount, the provider must reimburse the full excess amount plus interest.

Should a hospital require its IONM provider to be in network? Requiring participation is reasonable and worth pursuing, but it is not sufficient on its own, because network status can change during the contract term and participation varies by payer. Pair a participation obligation with a written notification requirement for any status change and with the contractual no-balance-billing commitment, so that a mid-term termination does not expose patients while the parties renegotiate.

Sources

Author

Related Posts