Plain English Summary
This bill aims to lower healthcare costs and increase price transparency in North Carolina through multiple measures: requiring hospitals and surgical facilities to publicly report pricing information on common procedures, mandating clear billing disclosures to patients about out-of-network providers, establishing good-faith cost estimates for scheduled procedures, limiting facility fees charged by hospitals, and strengthening prior authorization and appeals processes for health insurance.
Arguments in Favor
Supporters argue this bill addresses North Carolina's high healthcare costs by increasing price transparency, allowing patients to comparison shop and make informed decisions about care. The bill protects consumers from surprise out-of-network bills and unexpected charges, establishes accountability through mandatory reporting of facility fees, and gives patients tools like good-faith estimates to budget for care. Proponents believe competition driven by price information will incentivize providers to lower costs and improve quality.
Arguments Against
Opponents may contend that the bill creates significant compliance burdens and administrative costs for hospitals and healthcare providers, particularly smaller facilities. Concerns include that price transparency alone may not lower costs without addressing underlying structural issues in healthcare, that facility fees have legitimate operational purposes, and that some requirements (like the 5% good-faith estimate variance cap) could be difficult to implement accurately. Some argue the bill primarily shifts responsibility to consumers rather than addressing systemic cost drivers.
AI-generated analysis based on bill text. Always verify with official sources at ncleg.gov. This is not legal or political advice.
Sponsors
Primary Sponsor
Representative · District 10
Primary Sponsor
Representative · District 9
Primary Sponsor
Representative · District 105
Primary Sponsor
Representative · District 83
Cosponsors (56)
Representative · District 69
Representative · District 117
Representative · District 8
Representative · District 56
Representative · District 103
Representative · District 102
Representative · District 95
Representative · District 25
Representative · District 42
Representative · District 4
Representative · District 100
Representative · District 12
Representative · District 78
Representative · District 72
Representative · District 88
Representative · District 41
Representative · District 57
Representative · District 11
Representative · District 107
Representative · District 67
Representative · District 109
Representative · District 115
Representative · District 63
Representative · District 35
Representative · District 111
Representative · District 89
Representative · District 44
Representative · District 28
Representative · District 114
Representative · District 73
Representative · District 70
Representative · District 60
Representative · District 71
Representative · District 119
Representative · District 32
Representative · District 61
Representative · District 31
Representative · District 2
Representative · District 113
Representative · District 104
Representative · District 93
Representative · District 81
Representative · District 97
Representative · District 23
Representative · District 74
Representative · District 75
Representative · District 34
Representative · District 47
Representative · District 84
Representative · District 40
Representative · District 116
Representative · District 5
Representative · District 76
Representative · District 26
Representative · District 3
Representative · District 43
Vote Breakdown (3 roll calls)
Final Vote
On: M11 Not Concur
Party Breakdown