Navigating the No Surprises Act

Navigating the No Surprises Act: The Hidden Costs of Ineligible Arbitration Disputes 

The No Surprises Act, enacted in 2020 as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, was hailed as a landmark consumer protection measure. By shielding patients from unexpected out-of-network medical bills—particularly for emergency services, air ambulances, and non-emergency care at in-network facilities—it aimed to curb the predatory practices of surprise billing that plagued the U.S. healthcare system. Central to this framework is the Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) process, a baseball-style arbitration where insurers and providers submit payment offers, and a neutral arbiter selects one as binding. 

Yet, five years on, the system is buckling under its own weight. A 2024 survey by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBSA)—representing 25 health plans covering 154 million Americans—reveals a stark reality: 39% of claims submitted to IDR were ineligible for arbitration. Alarmingly, arbiters flagged only about 17% of these as improper, allowing the rest to proceed to binding determinations that often favor providers. 

This discrepancy isn't just procedural; it's a financial black hole. With providers winning the majority of disputes and securing reimbursements three to four times higher than in-network rates, ineligible claims are inflating premiums, employer costs, and ultimately, patient out-of-pocket expenses. As Mike Tuffin, AHIP’s president and CEO, noted, “The same private equity-backed outfits that created the surprise billing business model have turned to arbitration abuse as their new strategy to gouge consumers and employers.” 

This article dissects the survey’s findings, analyzes their systemic implications, and offers practical strategies for stakeholders to mitigate the fallout. 

The IDR Process: A Double-Edged Sword 

When negotiations fail, parties have 30 business days to initiate IDR after the initial payment determination. The arbiter evaluates factors like the Qualifying Payment Amount (QPA)—a median in-network rate—the provider’s experience, market rates, and patient acuity. The “baseball” rule ensures no middle-ground compromise; it’s all-or-nothing, a design that has led to contentious litigation from providers alleging bias toward insurers’ lower QPAs. 

Since the IDR portal’s April 2022 launch, filings have surged far beyond projections—hundreds of thousands per year, totaling over one million disputes through 2024–2025. Federal data show that a small number of large, private-equity-backed groups, such as Radiology Partners and TeamHealth, dominate dispute volume, accounting for a disproportionate share of resolutions in 2023–2024. 

The AHIP/BCBSA survey exposes a critical bottleneck: eligibility screening. Plans identified 33% of emergency, 45% of non-emergency, and 23% of air ambulance claims as ineligible—more than double the shares caught by arbiters (15%, 19%, and 10%, respectively). This gap resulted in an estimated 184,500 improper disputes advancing in 2024, contributing to $2–$2.5 billion in wasteful spending. 

Unpacking the Ineligibility Epidemic 

Why are so many claims slipping through? The survey highlights recurring issues: untimely submissions, incomplete documentation, conflicts with state surprise-billing laws, and services outside the Act’s scope (such as routine ground ambulances or elective procedures). These are not technicalities—they’re safeguards meant to ensure IDR addresses genuine “surprise” scenarios. 

The incentives are asymmetric. Providers, facing tight margins in fee-for-service medicine, view IDR as a high-stakes lottery with favorable odds. Multiple analyses show providers prevail in a majority of determinations, with median prevailing offers roughly 300–450% of the QPA. Insurers, by contrast, characterize the process as “pay-to-play”, where filing volume outweighs merit. Private equity magnifies this distortion by acquiring specialty practices, keeping them out-of-network, and flooding IDR with disputes, betting on arbiter leniency and regulatory backlog. 

The fallout is multifaceted: 

Providers counter that insurers’ low initial offers, often pegged to opaque QPAs, force defensive filings. The American Medical Association and others argue CMS undervalues provider inputs. Yet, data show patterns of repeat offenders—a small number of groups account for most disputes, echoing pre-Act surprise-billing behaviors. 

Practical Strategies for Stakeholders 

For Health Plans and Insurers 

For Providers and Practice Groups 

For Policymakers and Regulators 

For Employers and Consumers 

Reforming for Resilience 

The No Surprises Act’s IDR process, once a beacon of reform, now illustrates how well-intentioned policy can be subverted by volume and loopholes. With nearly 40% of disputes deemed ineligible and billions wasted, the system risks amplifying the very costs it sought to contain. 

But the crisis is solvable. Through vigilant compliance, data transparency, and technological modernization, stakeholders can restore balance. Policymakers must act decisively—finalizing portal upgrades and refining QPA methodology could halve inefficiencies by 2027. Until then, the AHIP/BCBSA survey should serve not as indictment, but as blueprint: for insurers, a call to fortify triage; for providers, a nudge toward sustainable contracting; and for policymakers, a reminder that true surprise-billing protection demands shared accountability. 

Limitations & Methodological Notes 

All quantitative findings are drawn from publicly available sources (AHIP/BCBSA survey 2024–2025; CMS IDR portal data; Georgetown CHIR analyses; KFF issue briefs). Estimates of cost impact and eligibility rates derive from insurer-reported data and should be interpreted as indicative, not exhaustive. Independent audits and CMS validation may refine these figures in future releases. 

Sources