Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hb263 Price Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances hospital price‑transparency bill; sponsor cites Colorado model, hospitals raise implementation concerns
Summary
HB 263, a hospital price‑transparency bill, received a committee recommendation after proponents said state enforcement is needed to turn federal price‑posting rules into useful, consumer‑facing prices; hospitals and the hospital association urged alignment with federal rules and raised compliance and fine structure concerns.
The House Health & Human Services Committee on Feb. 14 voted to give HB 263 a due‑pass recommendation after testimony from a former state lawmaker and policy experts who urged the committee to adopt state authority to enforce hospital price‑posting requirements.
Sponsor’s rationale and evidence: Former Colorado lawmaker Steve Fenberg testified for the sponsor, summarizing Colorado’s experience: a 2022 Colorado law gave the state enforcement authority and consumer recourse and increased hospital compliance with federal price‑posting requirements from roughly 20% to more than 70% in that state, the witness said. Fenberg described a federal rule requiring hospitals to post prices but said that federal enforcement has been weak and that a state law can solve noncompliance and give patients a remedy when billed amounts exceed posted prices.
Hospital concerns: Representatives of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce and the New Mexico Hospital Association testified in opposition or with reservations. They said that HB 263 is more prescriptive than existing federal regulations, could impose duplicate reporting burdens, and contains a fine structure they described as potentially too punitive (the bill sets larger statutory penalties than the federal administrative penalty cited by hospitals). Hospital representatives said they support transparency in principle but urged the panel to harmonize state rules with federal requirements and to address definitional and technical issues in the bill.
Other testimony: Patient‑advocacy organizations, trial lawyers and advocates testified in support, saying price transparency empowers consumers and helps curtail aggressive billing or suits against low‑income patients. Advocates cited local examples of aggressive collection practices and said price transparency is a consumer protection measure.
Committee action: Following testimony and a short round of questions, the committee adopted a due‑pass recommendation on HB 263. The sponsor said he was open to technical amendments to address hospital concerns about definitional and compliance timing issues.
Why it matters: Advocates argue the bill would make hospital billing more accountable and would allow consumers to shop for scheduled services. Hospitals warned the bill could add compliance costs and risk inconsistent rules relative to federal guidance.
