{"id":26144,"date":"2026-06-23T10:12:25","date_gmt":"2026-06-23T14:12:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/?p=26144"},"modified":"2026-06-23T10:13:13","modified_gmt":"2026-06-23T14:13:13","slug":"feds-push-for-more-intel-on-no-surprises-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/?p=26144","title":{"rendered":"Feds push for more intel on No Surprises Act"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>(By:\u00a0Elizabeth Casolo for <em>Becker&#8217;s Hospital Review<\/em>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Congressional Budget Office is requesting more research on the No Surprises Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In a June 15 website post, CBO called for research relying on more recent data, as claims data for existing studies end in 2023, while arbitration patterns were just beginning to emerge. CBO also hopes to solidify whether price and network trends are related to NSA, isolated from other factors. Other recommended research includes quantitative or qualitative insights on arbitrators\u2019 decision making and possible incentives, as well as healthcare market evolution in the wake of the law.  Continue reading <a href=\"https:\/\/www.beckerspayer.com\/financial\/feds-push-for-more-intel-on-no-surprises-act\/\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/www.beckerspayer.com\/financial\/feds-push-for-more-intel-on-no-surprises-act\/\">here&#8230;<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-small-font-size\"><strong>Notice:<\/strong>\u00a0The link provided above connects readers to the full content of the posted article. The URL (internet address) for this link is valid on the posted date; medicarereport.org cannot guarantee the duration of the link\u2019s validity. Also, the opinions expressed in these postings are the viewpoints of the original source and are not explicitly endorsed by AMAC, Inc.; the AMAC Foundation, Inc.; or medicarereport.org.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>(By:\u00a0Elizabeth Casolo for Becker&#8217;s Hospital Review) The Congressional Budget Office is requesting more research on the No Surprises Act. In<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":7924,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21,10],"tags":[385,238,2095],"class_list":["post-26144","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-health-care-finance","category-legislative-update","tag-healthcare-costs","tag-healthcare-finance","tag-no-surprise-act"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26144","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=26144"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26144\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26145,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26144\/revisions\/26145"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/7924"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=26144"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=26144"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medicarereport.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=26144"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}