Loading Curie Briefs...
Getting the latest healthcare news for you
Getting the latest healthcare news for you
HaloMD, a major surprise billing intermediary, released a study claiming the No Surprises Act has cut out-of-network emergency spending by $1–$4 billion annually. But independent researchers say the methodology is flawed and the findings contradict broader evidence that the law is actually increasing U.S. healthcare costs. Critics note HaloMD has a clear financial stake in keeping the dispute resolution process intact.
HaloMD, one of the most active filers of surprise billing disputes, published a study claiming the No Surprises Act (NSA) has reduced out-of-network emergency medical spending by 13%–52% since taking effect in 2022 — translating to $1–$4 billion in annual savings. The firm argues that most analyses focus narrowly on the law's independent dispute resolution (IDR) process, ignoring the roughly 90% of out-of-network claims settled directly between payers and providers without arbitration.
Independent researchers, however, are pushing back hard. Georgetown University found last month that IDR alone generated over $22 billion in extra healthcare spending over its first four years. Experts at Brookings and Georgetown say HaloMD's analysis relies on unverified assumptions rather than actual data, focuses selectively on emergency medicine (where IDR payouts are comparatively lower), and ignores arbitration fees and other costs.
By the Numbers:
Why it matters: HaloMD earns a cut of every IDR award it wins — giving it a direct financial incentive to defend the current system. With lawmakers and regulators eyeing NSA reform, the credibility of this research matters enormously for the future of surprise billing policy.
