West Virginia Legislature prohibits surprise billing for out-of-network ambulance services
February 28, 2025 | Introduced Bills, Senate Bills, 2025 Bills, West Virginia Legislation Bills, West Virginia
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
On February 28, 2025, the West Virginia State Legislature introduced Senate Bill 632, aimed at addressing the issue of surprise billing for out-of-network ambulance services. This legislation seeks to amend the Code of West Virginia by adding five new sections that clarify payment structures and protections for insured individuals receiving emergency medical services.
The primary purpose of Senate Bill 632 is to prohibit surprise billing practices by nonparticipating emergency medical services (EMS) providers. Under the proposed bill, any payment made by an insurer to a nonparticipating EMS agency for covered ground ambulance services will be considered full payment, excluding only specified copayments, coinsurance, and deductibles. This means that patients will not be liable for any additional charges beyond what their insurance requires them to pay.
Key provisions of the bill include a stipulation that insurers must pay nonparticipating EMS agencies at a rate of either 400% of the current Medicare rate for similar services or the agency's billed charges, whichever is lower. Furthermore, insurers are mandated to process claims within 30 days, ensuring timely payments to EMS providers and reducing the financial burden on patients.
The bill has sparked discussions among lawmakers and stakeholders, particularly regarding its implications for healthcare costs and access to emergency services. Proponents argue that it will protect consumers from unexpected medical bills and promote transparency in ambulance service pricing. However, some critics express concerns about the potential financial impact on EMS providers, particularly those who may rely on higher out-of-network rates to sustain operations.
The economic implications of Senate Bill 632 could be significant, as it aims to standardize payments and reduce the incidence of surprise billing, which has been a growing concern in the healthcare industry. By establishing clear guidelines for payment and billing practices, the bill seeks to enhance consumer protection while balancing the financial realities faced by EMS providers.
As the legislative process unfolds, the bill's future will depend on ongoing debates and potential amendments. If passed, Senate Bill 632 could set a precedent for similar legislation in other states, reflecting a broader movement towards reforming healthcare billing practices and improving patient protections in emergency medical situations.
The primary purpose of Senate Bill 632 is to prohibit surprise billing practices by nonparticipating emergency medical services (EMS) providers. Under the proposed bill, any payment made by an insurer to a nonparticipating EMS agency for covered ground ambulance services will be considered full payment, excluding only specified copayments, coinsurance, and deductibles. This means that patients will not be liable for any additional charges beyond what their insurance requires them to pay.
Key provisions of the bill include a stipulation that insurers must pay nonparticipating EMS agencies at a rate of either 400% of the current Medicare rate for similar services or the agency's billed charges, whichever is lower. Furthermore, insurers are mandated to process claims within 30 days, ensuring timely payments to EMS providers and reducing the financial burden on patients.
The bill has sparked discussions among lawmakers and stakeholders, particularly regarding its implications for healthcare costs and access to emergency services. Proponents argue that it will protect consumers from unexpected medical bills and promote transparency in ambulance service pricing. However, some critics express concerns about the potential financial impact on EMS providers, particularly those who may rely on higher out-of-network rates to sustain operations.
The economic implications of Senate Bill 632 could be significant, as it aims to standardize payments and reduce the incidence of surprise billing, which has been a growing concern in the healthcare industry. By establishing clear guidelines for payment and billing practices, the bill seeks to enhance consumer protection while balancing the financial realities faced by EMS providers.
As the legislative process unfolds, the bill's future will depend on ongoing debates and potential amendments. If passed, Senate Bill 632 could set a precedent for similar legislation in other states, reflecting a broader movement towards reforming healthcare billing practices and improving patient protections in emergency medical situations.
View Bill
This article is based on a bill currently being presented in the state government—explore the full text of the bill for a deeper understanding and compare it to the constitution
View Bill