
How much will that surgery cost? Hospital prices remain largely unhelpful
It's a holy grail of health care: forcing the industry to reveal prices negotiated between health plans and hospitals — information that had long been treated as a trade secret. And among the flurry of executive orders President Donald Trump signed during his first five weeks back in office was a promise to 'Make America Healthy Again' by giving patients accurate healthcare prices.
The goal is to force hospitals and health insurance companies to make it easier for consumers to compare the actual prices of medical procedures and prescription drugs. Trump gave his administration until the end of May to come up with a standard and a mechanism to make sure the healthcare industry complies.
But Trump's 2025 order is also a symbol of how little progress the country has made since he issued a similar directive nearly six years ago. Consumers find it only partially useful, and the quality of the information is spotty.
A 'bold' first step in pricing that fizzled
The 2019 order was 'pretty bold,' said Gary Claxton, a senior vice president at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. 'They basically went at the providers and the plans and said, 'All this data you think is confidential we're not going to make confidential anymore.''
What followed was, to consumer advocacy groups, a disappointment. Hospitals and insurers posted on websites voluminous, complex, and confusing data about their prices. The information has been a challenge for even experts in health care pricing to navigate, let alone consumers. Some members of Congress filed legislation to put the force of law behind price transparency requirements; those bills died. And President Joe Biden's administration was criticized for not more stringently enforcing the regulations, with one consumer advocacy group even buying a Super Bowl ad featuring the rapper Fat Joe alleging that 'hospitals and insurers hide their prices.'
Trump's new order, signed in February, said that hospitals and health plans 'were not adequately held to account when their price transparency data was incomplete or not even posted at all.'
The Government Accountability Office reported in October that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services didn't know whether prices reported by the healthcare industry were correct or complete. But CMS, which regulates hospitals, now plans to 'systematically monitor compliance' and help institutions understand the requirements, said Catherine Howden, an agency spokesperson.
Howden did not answer questions about whether CMS staffers overseeing price transparency compliance have been fired as part of the Trump administration's wide-ranging effort to cut the federal workforce.
'Zombie' rates and other inconsistencies
Meanwhile, independent researchers have found numerous problems with the quality of price data both hospitals and health insurers do share with consumers.
A recent report from the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker found that data reported by four health insurers in New York City often included prices that they say they pay hospitals for services that those health providers don't — or can't — provide. These are called 'ghost' or 'zombie' rates. For example, the health plans reported dentists, optometrists and audiologists receiving payments for knee replacements, gastrointestinal exams, and other procedures unrelated to their specialties.
In other cases, the data included different prices for the same service paid for by the same insurer at the same hospital. UnitedHealthcare, for example, reported paying New York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center three rates — $47,000, $64,000, and $70,000 — to treat a heart attack.
Or, the insurers reported paying the same price for vastly different services. Aetna, for example, said it paid exactly $6,292 to Mount Sinai Beth Israel hospital for the treatment of respiratory infections, heart attacks, cancers of the digestive tract, kidney and urinary tract infections, and psychosis.
Neither UnitedHealthcare nor Aetna addressed the discrepancies in the data. Cole Manbeck, a spokesperson for UnitedHealthcare, said the insurer has met price transparency requirements and urged members 'to use our cost-estimator tools for exact costs based on their specific health plan.' Aetna spokesperson Shelly Bendit referred questions to AHIP, a lobbying and trade association for insurers.
Health insurers have 'strongly supported' price transparency, said Chris Bond, a spokesperson for AHIP. The group will work with the Trump administration to provide transparency 'in a way that is meaningful for the end user, while also promoting a competitive private market,' Bond said.
What's a health consumer to do?
Estimates and total prices aren't very useful for consumers, who are mainly interested in what they'll ultimately have to pay out-of-pocket, said David Cutler, a professor of applied economics at Harvard University. That can vary by health plan, depending on deductibles, co-payments, and other fees.
'Most of the price transparency information doesn't have that,' he said.
It also doesn't give consumers information about the quality of care, Cutler added, which can lead to an old bias. 'It's kind of like wine when you go to the restaurant,' he said. 'People assume that the more expensive wine is better.'
Cutler said he's skeptical that price transparency will lower costs for patients. But he said it may offer insight to hospitals and health plans about what their competitors are charging and paying for services — knowledge that could inadvertently lead to price increases if hospitals that receive a lower rate than a competitor demand higher reimbursement from health plans.
Trump's recent executive order notes that the top quarter of the most expensive health service prices have dropped by 6.3% a year since his 2019 order.
However, the same research referenced in the executive order showed that the bottom quarter of services got more expensive, at a rate of about 3.4% per year, according to the analysis by Turquoise Health, a health care price data firm that examined rates at more than 200 hospitals in the 10 largest U.S. markets.
Some patients say that with research and persistence, they've been able to make price transparency work for them.
Theresa Schmotzer, 50, of Goodyear, Arizona, said she used hospital price data to save nearly $3,000 on outpatient surgery to have a fibroid removed last year.
Schmotzer, who has health insurance, said the hospital first told her she would owe $3,700 for the procedure and wanted the payment upfront. But she was skeptical.
She said her health insurer was unable to quote a price for the procedure or specify how much she would owe. The morning of the surgery, Schmotzer said, she found a spreadsheet online at PatientRightsAdvocate.org that included different prices paid by insurers, including hers. The reported price for the procedure was closer to $700, she said.
Schmotzer said she took a printout of the spreadsheet to the hospital and presented it during preadmission. She paid her $300 deductible and told the hospital to bill her for the rest.
A few months later, she said, the bill arrived in the mail for the remaining $400, which she paid.
When people go for surgery and aren't clear upfront what the cost will be, it stokes fear, she said. 'Because they're going in blind.'
Next steps for hospital and health plan pricing
Hospitals say they want to work with federal regulators and comply with reporting requirements, said Ariel Levin, director of coverage policy for the American Hospital Association, which represents about 5,000 institutions. Levin said consumers should be given the price of services and 'a more comprehensive estimate' that represents an entire episode of care and the amount they'll owe out-of-pocket, based on their health plan.
CMS has developed rules since Trump's 2019 order to make price information reported by hospitals and health plans easier to understand, and the agency has fined more than a dozen hospitals for failing to comply.
Federal rules allow hospitals to report an estimate, a price range, or a historical rate for their services, while health plans can adjust prices based on factors like the severity of the case, the length of treatment, and a patient's age.
KFF's Claxton said that such flexibility doesn't allow for 'apples-to-apples comparisons' and that the data must be reliable before researchers can use it to better understand health care costs. 'It doesn't seem to be that yet,' he said.
Much remains to be done before price transparency lives up to expectations that it will increase competition and lower costs, said Katie Martin, chief executive of the Health Care Cost Institute, a nonprofit research group.
Price transparency alone is not a silver bullet, Martin said. It's 'a critical first step' for employers, lawmakers, regulators, and others to better understand how money flows through the health care system and how to make it more efficient, she said. 'It's not the whole thing.'
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Parade to Display Power at Home That's Being Tested Abroad
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump's pledge to exert US power around the world is being tested in Europe and the Middle East, but this weekend offers him a chance to display that power on American soil. Shuttered NY College Has Alumni Fighting Over Its Future Trump's Military Parade Has Washington Bracing for Tanks and Weaponry NYC Renters Brace for Price Hikes After Broker-Fee Ban Do World's Fairs Still Matter? As Part of a $45 Billion Push, ICE Prepares for a Vast Expansion of Detention Space Trump, who's celebrating his 79th birthday on Saturday, is the driving force behind the parade down Washington's Constitution Avenue — which runs behind the White House — that includes a muscular exhibition of 6,600 soldiers, Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and a Black Hawk helicopter. Also planned are historic reenactments, state-of-the-art military technology and a flyover with the Air Force Thunderbirds. The Army is marking its 250th anniversary with a companion all-day event on the National Mall. The parade is expected to cost $45 million, an estimate that includes potential damage to major District of Columbia streets from heavy tank treads. The US last celebrated its military strength in 1991 after the first Gulf War. The only other such events celebrated the end of the Civil War and World Wars I and II. While Democratic President John F. Kennedy included military displays in his 1961 inaugural parade, such exhibitions are more common in authoritarian countries such as Russia, China and North Korea. Longtime US ally France also marks its annual Bastille Day with a military parade. Previous parades in the US came in moments of national unity and patriotism about victories overseas. By contrast, Trump's parade coincides with his seizing control of California's National Guard and deploying US Marines to quell protests over immigration raids in the state. An appeals court is allowing him to continue their use over the weekend as a lawsuit from Governor Gavin Newsom is considered. Across the globe, Trump's exertion of US influence and power has been repeatedly stymied. Few US trade deals have been notched since his April 2 'Liberation Day' announcement. Israel and Iran traded missile strikes on Friday, jeopardizing US talks with the Tehran government over its nuclear program. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Israel acted 'unilaterally.' Hours later, Trump linked the strikes to the talks, demanding that Iran return to the discussions. Despite a promise to end the war in Ukraine on 'Day 1,' Trump has failed to push Russian President Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table and both sides are waging increasingly audacious attacks. European leaders are moving away from relying on the US and seeking other means of aiding Ukraine. Back home, the Washington parade will be flanked by at least 200 'No King' protests nationwide to defy what organizers call Trump's brand of authoritarianism. Millions are expected to participate from New York and Chicago to Milwaukee and Los Angeles. Trump on Monday referred back to the 2020 protests over the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, and suggested he would handle such incidents differently in his second term. 'There's so many different places where we let it burn, we wanted to be politically correct, we wanted to be nice,' he said. 'Those people that want to protest, they're going to be met with very big force,' Trump said this week. 'And I haven't even heard about a protest, but, you know, this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force.' Trump has been eager to host a military parade ever since attending a Bastille Day parade in Paris during his first term. City officials in Washington warned that heavy military vehicles could damage city streets, and the price tag became a political liability. American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software New Grads Join Worst Entry-Level Job Market in Years As Companies Abandon Climate Pledges, Is There a Silver Lining? US Tariffs Threaten to Derail Vietnam's Historic Industrial Boom ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Steel Sale to Nippon Steel Poised to Close After Trump Deal
(Bloomberg) -- Nippon Steel Corp. won conditional US approval for its $14.1 billion purchase of United States Steel Corp., capping a lengthy saga in a tie-up that will create one of the world's largest steel companies. Shuttered NY College Has Alumni Fighting Over Its Future Trump's Military Parade Has Washington Bracing for Tanks and Weaponry NYC Renters Brace for Price Hikes After Broker-Fee Ban Do World's Fairs Still Matter? As Part of a $45 Billion Push, ICE Prepares for a Vast Expansion of Detention Space In a release Friday, the companies said they've committed to a national security agreement proposed by the Trump administration, which earlier cleared the deal subject to those terms. As part of the $55-per-share deal, the Japanese company will invest an additional $11 billion by 2028, including an initial commitment in a greenfield project that would be completed after 2028. Nippon had previously raised its pledged additional investment in an effort to win President Donald Trump's approval. Nippon Steel will also spend an extra $3 billion after 2028 for a new steel mill, according to people familiar with the matter. That would push the total additional investment — on top of the purchase price — to $14 billion. Earlier Friday, Trump formally opened the door to approving the sale of US Steel by submitting the agreement to the companies and amending former President Joe Biden's move to block the agreement in an executive order. The president's action cleared the sale so long as the companies comply with the government's terms. 'President Trump promised to protect American Steel and American Jobs — and he has delivered on that promise,' White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a written statement. 'Today's executive order ensures US Steel will remain in the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and be safeguarded as a critical element of America's national and economic security.' Nippon Steel and US Steel in the release said they had received regulatory approvals and that 'the partnership is expected to be finalized promptly.' The deal is expected to close by June 18, the merger agreement deadline, Japan's Nikkei reported on Saturday, without saying where it got the information. Trump earlier this week said the US would receive a so-called golden share in the post-transaction company, though it's not clear what that would entail. The companies confirmed that the US would get a golden share but didn't elaborate. The terms of the security agreement include significant and unprecedented US control measures, as well as certain control over some board seats and requirements that some leadership roles go to American citizens, according to a person familiar with the pact, speaking on condition of anonymity. The golden share does not include an equity stake in the company, the person said. Earlier: Nippon Steel Plans $6 Billion Investment in Its Japanese Mills 'The Japanese government believes that this investment will strengthen the ability of the Japanese and US steel industries to generate new innovation and lead to the strengthening of the close partnership between Japan and the US,' Japan's Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, Yoji Muto, said in a written statement. 'We welcome the decision of the US government.' Trump and Biden as well as former Vice President Kamala Harris campaigned against the deal, before the former president blocked it in January. Trump has since reversed his position, insisting that the agreement would preserve steel jobs in the US. The text of the security agreement hasn't been released. Trump and others have previously announced other elements of the deal, including bonuses to steelworkers, a requirement to keep existing blast furnaces running for a decade, and government veto power to retain control over the board of the US Steel subsidiary. Trump has also hailed the accord as vindication of his trade policies, which have seen the administration levy tariffs in a bid to pressure companies to shift more manufacturing to the US. Japan has been engaging in negotiations with the US over trade in a bid to avoid higher levies Trump has threatened. Trump's decision to champion Nippon Steel's bid offers to provide fresh momentum for those talks. Trump held a rally in Pennsylvania two weeks ago, at US Steel's iconic Mon Valley facility, celebrating the deal with a crowd of steelworkers, even though it had not yet been finalized. Earlier: US, Mexico Near Deal to Cut Steel Duties and Cap Imports Trump also used that event to announce he was doubling his tariffs on steel and aluminum, raising them to 50% from 25%. Since that rally, government officials, company executives and deal advisers worked to hammer out the finer details and get the final signatures. The deal creates a combined company that will be the world's second-largest steelmaker. It will become a formidable domestic competitor to Nucor Corp., which for a generation has dominated the American steel industry. The acquisition also clears the way for enhanced steelmaking in areas the US has lagged in recent years, including the type of steel critical to bolster ailing electric grids across the country. The Japanese steelmaker's takeover became a political lightning rod after the leadership of the United Steelworkers – based, like US Steel itself, in Pittsburgh – staunchly opposed the tie-up. Biden sided with them, as did Trump. The deal has taken a winding path with extensions, a Biden block, a legal fight, and then Trump's decision to reexamine it before ultimately clearing it. Nippon Steel and US Steel have steadily tried to address worries, with Vice Chairman Takahiro Mori making repeated visits to the US to clinch the deal. Divisions within the union were laid bare through the process, with local union leaders expressing support for the deal and breaking with their national leadership. Trump's reversal was a few months in the making. In February, he surprised the parties by blessing some kind of a minority stake — an announcement they hadn't been privy to and didn't understand. The deal, then and now, was built on Nippon Steel buying US Steel entirely. The question was mitigation measures. The president said he supported a 'planned partnership' between the companies on May 23, without providing details of an announcement that appeared to bless the original deal with additional mitigation measures. --With assistance from Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Meghashyam Mali and Yoshiaki Nohara. (Updates with potential closing timeframe in eighth paragraph.) American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software New Grads Join Worst Entry-Level Job Market in Years As Companies Abandon Climate Pledges, Is There a Silver Lining? US Tariffs Threaten to Derail Vietnam's Historic Industrial Boom ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.


Hamilton Spectator
15 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Democrats squaring off in Virginia primaries say one name a lot: Trump
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Two Virginia Democrats are battling Tuesday to be their party's nominee for attorney general. Yet, the name mentioned most in their campaigns is not that of their opponent, but rather a man who lives just over the Arlington Memorial Bridge: President Donald Trump. The barrage of changes Trump has wrought to American culture in the first few months of his second White House residency has ignited the campaigns of Virginia Democrats Jay Jones and Shannon Taylor as they appeal unrelentingly to the most devout swaths of their base ahead of down-ballot primary elections. The primary will also determine the party's nominations this year for lieutenant governor and some contested seats in the House of Delegates. In one of only two states electing governors in November — the other is New Jersey — the caustic anti-Trump rhetoric could be a hint of what voters nationwide will hear from Democrats in next year's midterm elections, when the stakes will be higher. Virginia's nominees for governor have been settled by default. Democrat Abigail Spanberger became her party's nominee after running unopposed, and Republican Winsome Earle-Sears was the only contender who gathered enough signatures to be on the ballot. The other statewide races are for attorney general and lieutenant governor, and Democrats in both contests seem to be vying to top each other with anti-Trump rhetoric and caustic ads. Republicans are not hosting statewide primaries this year, so only Democrats will pick a nominee for lieutenant governor. It's a part-time position that pays about $36,000 a year but is often a stepping stone to higher office. Six Democrats want the job , and most of them have pushed ad after ad on the airwaves and online about their commitment to taking on Trump if elected to the mostly ceremonial role. In the contest for attorney general, Jones and Taylor are competing in much the same way. Turnout is likely to be sluggish, which means firing up base voters is widely seen as the way to go. The last time a left-wing candidate for governor ran unopposed, roughly 142,000 Democrats voted for an attorney general nominee compared with more than 485,000 this past election cycle. Still, the AG's race has been spicy, more so when the candidates' criticism isn't directed at each other. Jones and Taylor have lambasted the White House and argued that the administration's actions should be litigated in court. When they are not lamenting Trump, their attacks are directed toward incumbent Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares, who is seeking reelection. In their respective campaigns, the Democrats argue that Miyares submits to the president by not suing him. They say that sets him apart from more progressive attorneys general across the United States, who are going to court over such things as birthright citizenship and elections . Their main message: A Democrat will take the White House to trial when Miyares won't — and saving democracy starts there. 'The job is to protect Virginians, to fight for them, to work for them, to keep us safe,' Jones said while campaigning in June in Falls Church, Virginia, adding, 'I don't understand why he is not going after them.' Last month, Taylor told a room full of Democratic voters that Miyares would enable Trump's overreaches in Virginia, and potentially double down on institutions that don't comply with the president. Either way, 'the result is the same for Virginians: getting hurt,' she said. In a wide-ranging interview in May, Miyares said he identifies as a balls-and-strikes Republican. The former Virginia Beach state delegate, elected top prosecutor in 2021, worked to reduce violent crime. He sought settlements from Big Pharma. When he felt President Joe Biden's administration overstepped, he went to court . But as Trump was ushered into office for a second term, Miyares entered new political terrain. Unlike most other states, Virginians will elect their attorney general this November, nearly a year after the country voted for the president and his consequential agenda. Miyares has waded into the political arena. He often spars on social media with progressive prosecutors throughout Virginia for being too lenient in prosecuting criminal cases. Still, Miyares rebuffed the notion that suing Trump is his top concern. He said the Democrats looking to replace him fail to understand the nature of his position. The attorney general touted meaningful work his office has shouldered: holding listening sessions for crime victims, designating resources to support law enforcement and beefing up his office's prosecutions of child support cases. He flashed his law enforcement badge, tucked within a leather wallet, and described the emblem as a guidepost for being an effective people's prosecutor. 'They seem very obsessed with Donald Trump, whereas I'm obsessed with how am I going to keep Virginians safe?' Miyares said. ___ Olivia Diaz is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .