Logo

Log In Sign Up |  An official publication of: American College of Emergency Physicians
Navigation
  • Home
  • Multimedia
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
  • Clinical
    • Airway Managment
    • Case Reports
    • Critical Care
    • Guidelines
    • Imaging & Ultrasound
    • Pain & Palliative Care
    • Pediatrics
    • Resuscitation
    • Trauma & Injury
  • Resource Centers
    • mTBI Resource Center
  • Career
    • Practice Management
      • Benchmarking
      • Reimbursement & Coding
      • Care Team
      • Legal
      • Operations
      • Quality & Safety
    • Awards
    • Certification
    • Compensation
    • Early Career
    • Education
    • Leadership
    • Profiles
    • Retirement
    • Work-Life Balance
  • Columns
    • ACEP4U
    • Airway
    • Benchmarking
    • Brief19
    • By the Numbers
    • Coding Wizard
    • EM Cases
    • End of the Rainbow
    • Equity Equation
    • FACEPs in the Crowd
    • Forensic Facts
    • From the College
    • Images in EM
    • Kids Korner
    • Medicolegal Mind
    • Opinion
      • Break Room
      • New Spin
      • Pro-Con
    • Pearls From EM Literature
    • Policy Rx
    • Practice Changers
    • Problem Solvers
    • Residency Spotlight
    • Resident Voice
    • Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine
    • Sound Advice
    • Special OPs
    • Toxicology Q&A
    • WorldTravelERs
  • Resources
    • ACEP.org
    • ACEP Knowledge Quiz
    • Issue Archives
    • CME Now
    • Annual Scientific Assembly
      • ACEP14
      • ACEP15
      • ACEP16
      • ACEP17
      • ACEP18
      • ACEP19
    • Annals of Emergency Medicine
    • JACEP Open
    • Emergency Medicine Foundation
  • About
    • Our Mission
    • Medical Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Awards
    • Authors
    • Article Submission
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
    • Copyright Information

ACEP Outlines Flaws, Biases in New England Journal of Medicine Story on Balance Billing

By Ryan Stanton MD, FACEP and ACEP President Rebecca Parker, MD, FACEP | on January 10, 2017 | 4 Comments
Features Opinion
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
Print-Friendly Version
ILLUSTRATION:ChRis Whissen; PHOTOs: shutterstock.com
ILLUSTRATION:Chris Whissen; PHOTOs: shutterstock.com

In November, The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published an article of great concern for all emergency physicians as it has the potential to damage and disparage America’s safety net with biased and self-serving data.

You Might Also Like
  • ACEP President Dr. Jay Kaplan Outlines Key Points on Balance Billing in Becker’s Hospital Review
  • ACEP, EDMPA Address Out-of-Network and Balance Billing Issues
  • Emergency Care Exempted From Balance Billing Ban
Explore This Issue
ACEP Now: Vol 36 – No 01 – January 2017

“Out-of-Network Emergency-Physician Bills—An Unwelcome Surprise” attacks emergency

physician balance billing practices.1 Unfortunately, what the authors failed to mention is the data biases of the study, the essential difference of emergency medicine from other specialties, the underlying reasons for balance billing, and the motivation behind the study.

ACEP leaders and our members have pushed back hard on this flawed “study.” A media release was picked up by several news sources across the United States, multiple letters to the editor were sent to various influential publications, and we used the social media megaphone to provide facts that underscore our mission and refute the inflammatory assumptions of the NEJM piece. ACEP also submitted a letter to the editor to NEJM and requested an in-person meeting with the NEJM editorial board. This request, to date, has been declined.

The study published by NEJM relies on a limited amount of data from a single commercial insurer representing fewer than 2 percent of the total US emergency patient visits, hardly representative of the US emergency patient population. It did not account for details such as deductibles and co-pays, making erroneous assumptions about patients’ financial responsibilities. Finally, the data were unavailable for review and include atrocious claims, such as balance bills of more than $19,000, without substantiating evidence or sources. These limitations, apparent biases, were not discussed by the authors or NEJM.

The authors also tried to lump emergency medicine into the result of medical practices. Emergency medicine isn’t a choice. Emergency departments and emergency physicians don’t choose who they treat. We see anyone at any time without consideration of coverage or ability to pay, a federal mandate known as EMTALA. We provide the best care possible to every patient.

Patients are experiencing balance billing because more and more insurance companies refuse to fairly reimburse for the care provided in emergency departments nationwide.

The issue isn’t whether emergency physicians try to contract with insurance companies—it is that insurance companies have no interest in contracting with emergency physicians. It isn’t in their best interest to take on the responsibilities of the uncompensated care we provide. Why would an insurance company be interested in “negotiating a fair price” for a service that is mandated and having a portion of the economic impact successfully shifted to someone else?

Pages: 1 2 3 | Single Page

Topics: ACEPAmerican College of Emergency PhysiciansBalance BillingBillingCost of Health CareEmergency DepartmentEmergency MedicineHealth InsuranceMedicareMedicare & MedicaidNew England Journal of MedicinePatient CarePractice ManagementReimbursement & Coding

Related

  • Florida Emergency Department Adds Medication-Dispensing Kiosk

    November 7, 2025 - 1 Comment
  • Q&A with ACEP President L. Anthony Cirillo

    November 5, 2025 - 0 Comment
  • Let Core Values Help Guide Patient Care

    November 5, 2025 - 0 Comment

Current Issue

ACEP Now: November 2025

Download PDF

Read More

4 Responses to “ACEP Outlines Flaws, Biases in New England Journal of Medicine Story on Balance Billing”

  1. January 21, 2017

    David Meurer, MD Reply

    Who will speak for EM in a correspondance to the NEJM opinion piece? This would be a good start

    • February 3, 2017

      Rebecca Parker Reply

      ACEP’s response has been submitted and accepted. We are waiting for the date of publication.

  2. January 23, 2017

    Mark L. Madenwald MD Reply

    EM Physician still see everyone that walks into an ER per federal law. I do so happily. The physicians on the review board for the NEJM certainly do not see every patient that walks into their office. They only see patients that can pay their fees

    • February 3, 2017

      Rebecca Parker Reply

      Yes, a very important point. The unfunded EMTALA is a crucial component, and unique aspect of emergency medicine. That is a part of my and ACEP’s response to the NEJM.

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*
*


Wiley
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy
  • Terms of Use
  • Advertise
  • Cookie Preferences
Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 2333-2603