News

Coalition Statement in Opposition of Arbitration Amendment

Inclusion of Arbitration Provision in Energy & Commerce Legislation Would Be A Hand-Out to Private Equity At Patients’ Expense WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Coalition Against Surprise Medical Billing, whose members include leading organizations representing employers,...

read more

Coalition Statement on H.R. 3630 “No Surprises Act”

Ahead of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce’s mark-up of H.R. 3630 “No Surprises Act”, the Coalition Against Surprise Medical Billing issued the following statement: “Out-of-network providers continue to take advantage of patients when they are at their most vulnerable. It’s not just the surprise from out-of-network bills that is unconscionable – it’s also the cost.

read more

Coalition Statement on Lower Health Care Costs Act of 2019

JUNE 26, WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Following today's mark-up of the Lower Health Care Costs Act of 2019 in the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP), the Coalition Against Surprise Medical Billing issued the following statement: “We commend...

read more

Ever Hear of an Out-of-Network Chef?

A major new advertising campaign from the Coalition Against Surprise Medical Billing highlights the unfair and unreasonable practice of surprise medical billing. American patients and families can’t afford these out-of-control bills from out-of-network providers – and they shouldn’t have to. The Coalition’s campaign underscores the urgency for federal legislation to put an end to this disturbing trend – which wouldn’t be tolerated in any other setting.

read more

Patients in Recovery Deserve Relief, Not a $100,000 Surprise Medical Bill

After a successful spinal surgery, Liv experienced almost instant relief… until a surprise medical bill for $93,991.58 arrived in her mailbox. The cause of the exorbitant bill? A neuromonitoring service provided during the spinal surgery. The service was an important part of her overall surgery, meant to detect potential damage to her nerves during the procedure. The catch was that the monitoring was charged as a separate service from the spinal surgery, because it was provided by a company that was out-of-network with her health insurance provider – even though her surgeon was in-network. How is this fair?

read more