Relating to fees charged for services provided in hospital-based facilities.
Summary
SB 539 regulates hospital facility fees charged for outpatient services at hospital-based facilities. It requires hospitals and their health systems to report annually to the Oregon Health Authority detailed information about where facility fees are charged, how many patient visits occur, how much revenue is collected, and how those fees are paid by Medicare, Medicaid, insurers, and patients. The OHA must post the reported information publicly on its website.
The bill also requires advance notice to patients when a facility fee may be charged. Hospitals and health systems must explain that the fee is separate from professional fees, estimate the patient’s likely financial responsibility, warn that the charge may be higher than at a non-hospital facility, and explain how to request a reduction. Billing statements must clearly itemize any facility fee separately from professional fees. In addition, the bill limits when facility fees may be charged at all, generally allowing them only for services on a hospital campus or at a hospital-based facility with an emergency department, and it bars facility fees for certain evaluation-and-management services.
Impact
SB 539 would add new provisions to ORS chapter 442 governing hospital-based facility fees and would amend Oregon’s consumer debt collection law, ORS 646.639, to treat attempts to collect prohibited facility fees as an unlawful collection practice. It also amends ORS 442.994 to authorize civil penalties of up to $500 per day for violations of the new reporting and notice requirements. The bill creates a compliance framework affecting hospitals, health systems, insurers, patients, and debt collectors, and it applies the new fee restrictions to services provided on or after the effective date, with a limited grandfathering provision for existing insurer contracts until renewal or expiration.
Sentiment
The available vote history suggests the bill had at least moderate support in committee, passing Senate committee 4-1 with amendments. The amended version indicates the measure was advanced in a form that likely reflected some negotiation or refinement, but no transcript excerpts are available to show detailed debate. Overall, the bill appears to be framed as a consumer transparency and billing-protection measure, which typically draws support from patient advocates and scrutiny from hospital and health system interests.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s restriction on when hospitals may charge facility fees, especially for off-campus or non-emergency services, because that directly affects hospital revenue and billing practices. Hospitals and health systems may also object to the reporting burden, required patient notices, and the risk of civil penalties and consumer-law liability. On the other side, supporters are likely focused on surprise billing, price transparency, and limiting patient cost exposure, particularly for services that can be billed more cheaply in non-hospital settings. The grandfather clause for existing insurer contracts suggests concern about disrupting current reimbursement arrangements.
An Act Concerning Hospital Sale-leaseback Transactions And Attestations Concerning Lack Of A Controlling Interest Of A Hospital Or Of Interference With The Professional Judgment And Clinical Decisions Of Certain Health Care Providers Of A Hospital By A Private Equity Entity.
Reimbursement for doula services under the Medical Assistance program, doulas accompanying Medical Assistance recipients in hospitals and birthing centers, and granting rule-making authority. (FE)
Reimbursement for doula services under the Medical Assistance program, doulas accompanying Medical Assistance recipients in hospitals and birthing centers, and granting rule-making authority. (FE)