A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 23-12 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to medical costs transparency for health care facilities; to amend and reenact section 26.1-47-02 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to health care facility and preferred provider compliance with medical cost transparency requirements; and to provide a penalty.
HB 1594 would require North Dakota health care facilities to make public a list of standard charges for items and services, including both inpatient and outpatient services and federally defined “shoppable services.” The bill directs facilities to publish the information in a format consistent with federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rules, tying the state disclosure requirement to existing federal transparency standards.
The bill also amends the state’s preferred provider arrangement law to require health care insurers and preferred providers to comply with federal transparency rules and to include an attestation of compliance in provider contracts. It preserves existing protections in insurer-provider contracts, including notice requirements, limits on unfair denial of medically necessary care, and prohibitions on retaliation against providers who report insurer conduct that endangers patients. The bill authorizes the insurance commissioner or a court to impose civil penalties for violations of the new transparency requirements.
HB 1594 would add a new state transparency mandate for licensed health care facilities, excluding nursing facilities, basic care facilities, and the state hospital, and would expose noncompliant facilities to daily civil penalties enforced by the insurance commissioner. It would also amend North Dakota’s preferred provider arrangement statute to incorporate federal transparency compliance into insurer-provider contracts and allow the commissioner to void noncompliant arrangements. The bill would therefore affect hospitals and other licensed facilities, health insurers, preferred providers, and the insurance commissioner’s enforcement authority.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote history, so there is no detailed public debate to summarize. Based on the bill’s text, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer transparency and accountability bill, with support implied by its bipartisan mix of sponsors from both chambers and both parties. The inclusion of federal transparency alignment suggests an effort to standardize pricing disclosure rather than create a wholly new regulatory scheme.
The main points of potential contention are the compliance burden and penalty structure for health care facilities and insurers. Facilities may object to the cost and administrative work required to publish standardized charge lists in the required format, while insurers and providers may be concerned about contract filing, attestation, and the commissioner’s authority to declare arrangements void. Another possible point of dispute is the scope of the law, since it excludes certain facility types and relies on federal definitions and rules that could change over time.