Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Care Billing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would require timely refunds for consumer overpayments to health providers; sponsors, hospitals seek language refinements
Summary
Assembly Bill 282 would require hospitals and health‑care providers to investigate suspected billing errors and refund overpayments within a statutory timeframe; testimony included a patient’s multi‑month experience seeking repayment and stakeholder negotiations over enforcement and billing‑entity responsibility.
Assembly Bill 282, presented by Assemblymember David Orentlicker, would create a statutory process requiring health‑care facilities and professionals to investigate suspected billing errors and to refund overpayments within a set timeframe. The bill’s sponsor said the proposal is modeled on legislation from other states and is intended to protect patients who unintentionally overpay while insurers and providers reconcile claims.
Ellen Spiegel, who testified to the committee, described a multi‑month effort to secure a refund after paying $1,457.75 as a deposit for care and learning months later that her final patient responsibility was $181.06. “I didn’t receive my refund until November 16 — 232 days after I paid the deposit and 121 days after the EOB had been finalized,” Spiegel said. Under the bill’s timelines, her refund would have been required far earlier.
The bill would require health‑care entities to investigate a patient’s written notice of a billing error and either correct the error or notify the patient that an investigation is ongoing. If an overpayment is confirmed, the provider or billing entity would be required to refund the patient within a statutory window; the sponsor proposed enforcement including fines for failure to refund, and stakeholders discussed cap amounts.
Hospital and physician groups said the system is complex: billing sequences, insurer adjudication and claims timing can delay final explanations of benefits. Patrick Kelly of the Nevada Hospital Association and representatives of the Nevada State Medical Association told the committee they worked with the sponsor to craft amendments to address implementation concerns, notably clarifying that fines or enforcement should apply to the billing entity (the organization that bills under the payer contract) rather than to an individual clinician who does not control billing.
Industry groups and insurance producers supported the bill’s consumer protections after the sponsor incorporated amendments. The Vegas Chamber signaled that with amendments it would move to neutral. Testimony did not record a committee vote on AB 282; the sponsor said he would continue to refine implementation language with stakeholders.
Supporters urged clearer written communications to patients about pending investigations and a reasonable statutory timeline for refunds when an overpayment is identified.
