Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hospital Price Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee rejects Mercer’s hospital price‑transparency bill; members cite costs and litigation risk
Summary
The committee heard extensive testimony for and against HB 689. Hospitals warned the bill duplicates federal requirements, would be costly to implement, and could spur litigation; the committee voted the bill down in committee and then tabled it.
Representative Bill Mercer presented House Bill 689 as a consumer‑protection measure intended to require Montana hospitals to provide accessible price information and, after a notice‑and‑cure period, allow enforcement under the Montana Consumer Protection Act.
Mercer told members the bill is modeled on statutes in other states and argued that federal enforcement has been inconsistent: "If you want to ensure Montana hospitals are going to do the sort of things that I believe should be done under price transparency, you should not rely on the federal government," he said.
Hospital representatives and independent rural CEOs testified in opposition. JJ Carmody of Billings Clinic/Logan Health described compliance costs — $325,000 annually for software/consultants and $215,000 for four FTEs to generate good‑faith estimates — and warned that requirements such as producing a print‑friendly file would be impractical and costly. Nicholas Dirkes, CEO of Francis M. Deaconess Hospital, said the bill imposes duplicative, costly mandates that do not translate posted hospital prices into patients' out‑of‑pocket responsibility.
Witnesses and members debated several operational questions: whether hospitals can force insurers to disclose negotiated rates; how posted chargemaster prices relate to patient liability; whether required top‑300 shoppable service files should be mandatory in addition to online estimator tools; and whether a private right of action would invite excessive litigation. Hospitals urged administrative enforcement rather than private lawsuits.
After questioning and debate, the committee took executive action. Roll call recorded 4 ayes and 17 nays on a motion to pass HB 689; the measure failed in committee. Members then moved to table the bill and returned it to committee files for possible future work.
What happens next: HB 689 failed to pass out of committee and was placed back in committee files (tabled). The sponsor indicated willingness to work with stakeholders on amendments, including possibly adjusting timelines and enforcement mechanisms.
Sources: Sponsor remarks and testimony from JJ Carmody (Billings Clinic/Logan Health), Duane Pressinger, Adam Schaffer (Intermountain Health), Nicholas Dirkes (Francis M. Deaconess Hospital), and DPHHS Inspector General Leslie Howe.
