Employers and plan fiduciaries should audit contracts, conduct due diligence to assess potential added costs and other liabilities from past and future service provider NSA missteps

Group health plans, their employer or union plan sponsors, and fiduciaries update their processes for handling out-of-network provider charge disputes in response to the CMS, Federal Independent Dispute Resolution Operations; Final Rules (CMS-9897-F, full text PDF) released on May 28, 2026 to implement the No Surprises Act (“NSA”). See also CMS, Federal Independent Dispute Resolution Operations Final Rule (Fact Sheet); HHS, Federal Rule Takes Aim at Health Care Bureaucracy, Reducing Dispute Fees, and Boosting Transparency (Press Release, May 28, 2026). along with reading their plans for upcoming changes, plans sponsors in fiduciaries also should audit their third-party administrator or other service providers handling prior out of network coverage disputes to identify unnecessary costs and other mishandling liabilities attributable to potential funding by the service provider of out of network claims under existing independent dispute, resolution rules.

The final rule issued by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury (the “Departments”), acting through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) and joined by the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”), overhauls the operational mechanics of the federal arbitration process that the NSA requires group health plans, issuers, Federal Employees Health Benefits carriers (“payers”), and out-of-network providers, facilities, and air ambulance providers (“providers”) use to resolve out-of-network payment disputes. (CMS Fact Sheet; HHS Press Release). Also see CMS, No Surprises Act — Overview of Rules & Fact Sheets.

According to the Departments, the Federal IDR process has received more than 5 million disputes since launching in April 2022—far beyond projections, generating delays, backlogs, and unnecessary cost. (HHS Press Release). Much of the rule targets a recurring problem: ineligible disputes clogging the pipeline because parties cannot readily tell, early on, which claims actually qualify for federal arbitration.

Below is a practical summary of the key changes and, importantly, the staggered dates on which they take effect.

IDR Administrative Fee Lowered

For parties weighing whether to use the process, the most immediate change is cost. The per-party, per-dispute administrative fee falls from $115 to $15—a reduction of more than 85%—while the program remains self-sustaining as the statute requires. The $15 fee applies regardless of the amount in dispute or whether the dispute is ultimately found eligible. (HHS Press Release; CMS Fact Sheet). since providers overwhelmingly initiate most of the IDR processes currently, the lower fee could encourage even more provider filings.

The rule also codifies existing guidance: if a party fails to pay the administrative fee or the certified IDR entity fee by the time its offer is due, that offer will not be considered received—but the party remains liable for the fees. The Departments further clarified their authority to pursue unpaid administrative fees consistent with federal debt collection laws. (CMS Fact Sheet).

Improving Up Front Communication

A central theme of the final rule is forcing better information exchange before a dispute ever reaches arbitration. The rule requires payers to use specific claim adjustment reason codes (“CARCs”) and remittance advice remark codes (“RARCs”) on any paper or electronic remittance advice sent to an entity with which the payer has no contractual relationship, signaling whether a claim is or is not subject to the NSA’s surprise-billing provisions and the federal IDR process. (CMS Fact Sheet).

Payers must also disclose additional identifying information with the initial payment or notice of denial of payment, including:

• The legal business name of the plan, issuer, or FEHB carrier,
• The plan sponsor’s legal business name where applicable, and 
• The new IDR registration number (discussed below), and
• Include a statement explaining that providers must notify the Departments to initiate open negotiation. (CMS Fact Sheet).

Restructured Open Negotiation

The final rule meaningfully tightens the 30-business-day open negotiation period. Under the final rule, a party must submit an open negotiation notice through the Federal IDR portal to both the other party and the Departments, with expanded required content elements. The 30-business-day clock now begins when that notice and the payment remittance or denial are submitted through the portal. The rule also creates a new open negotiation response notice, which the receiving party must furnish by the 15th business day of the negotiation period. (CMS Fact Sheet).

These mechanics are designed to document clear start and end dates in the portal and cut down on disputes advancing to arbitration without genuine negotiation.

New Batching Rule With 50-Item Cap

The rule revises when items and services may be combined into a single “batched” dispute. Batching is permitted where the items and services are:

• Furnished to a single patient on the same or consecutive dates of service and billed on the same claim form (a patient encounter);
• Furnished to one or more patients and billed under the same service code or a comparable code under a different procedural code system (e.g., CPT and HCPCS); or
• Anesthesiology, radiology, pathology, and laboratory services furnished to one or more patients under service codes within the same Category I CPT code section, as specified in Departmental guidance.

Critically, the rule imposes a hard ceiling of 50 qualified IDR line items per batched dispute, so certified IDR entities can make timely determinations and forecast their costs. (CMS Fact Sheet).

Hard Deadline on Eligibility Determinations

Eligibility review has been the single biggest source of delay. The rule now requires certified IDR entities to determine eligibility within five business days of final entity selection and to notify both parties and the Departments. 

To support eligibility, conflict-of-interest, and payment determinations, parties must respond to a certified IDR entity’s request for additional information within 5 business days. If a party does not respond, the entity proceeds without the information where possible, or closes the dispute where it is not. (CMS Fact Sheet).

While the agencies how did this rule to address payer concerns about the volume of provider IDR submissions for in eligible claims, the short deadline for response spells trouble for employer and other health plan sponsors since many third-party administrator or other IDR service providers to their plans are not responding in a timely fashion to the 30 day negotiation and other key IDR deadlines.

New Payer IDR Registry

Plans and their fiduciaries and surface providers also must prepare to meet new registration requirements. Since the original IDR responsibilities took a fact, many plan, notices contained ambiguous or incorrect information failed to provide the required identifying information for providers to use to provide IDR notices.

To solve the persistent problem of providers being unable to identify the correct payer or contact, the final rule requires payers subject to the federal IDR process to register with the Departments and supply general information about how the process applies to their coverage. 

The registry is part of the broader IDR Gateway—a centralized platform for starting, tracking, and managing disputes that the Departments will roll out in phases beginning in 2026. (HHS Press Release).

Each registrant receives an IDR registration number that parties can use to confirm eligibility, and that the Departments, OPM, and certified IDR entities can access for enforcement and eligibility purposes. (CMS Fact Sheet).

Extenuating Circumstances

The final rule expands the extenuating circumstances under which IDR timeframes may be extended to include events causing systemic processing delays, such as an unforeseen volume of disputes or portal system failures, and commits the Departments to posting public notice of any such system-wide extensions. Parties also may still request individual extensions through the portal. (CMS Fact Sheet).

Staggered Effective Dates

Covered parties must mind the staggered effective dates of the various components of the final rule. Compliance planning here is complicated by a phased rollout. Based on the Departments’ applicability discussion:

• CARC/RARC communication and the QPA disclosure modifications take effect on the rule’s effective date, with implementing guidance to follow.
• The lower $15 administrative fee applies to disputes initiated on or after 5 business days after publication of the final rule (the Departments invoked good cause to waive the APA’s delayed-effective-date requirement). 
• The fee-nonpayment procedures apply on the effective date.
• The revised batching definition applies to disputes with open negotiation periods beginning 90 days after the effective date.
• Most IDR process changes (open negotiation, IDR initiation, certified IDR entity selection, eligibility review, batched/bundled treatment, offer and payment-determination deadlines, and certain withdrawals) apply to disputes with open negotiation periods beginning 90 days after the Departments issue guidance that the supporting functionality is available.
• The IDR Registry provisions become applicable 90 business days after the Departments announce that the registry functionality is available. (CMS Fact Sheet)

Litigation Backdrop: Payers Losing In IDR & Payer Appeals

The final rule arrives against a wave of litigation in which insurers, third party administrators and their group health plans, and others responsible for plan IDR administration are losing in the IDR process and so judicial challenges to unfavorable IDR outcomes. This means many health plans are paying significantly more for out of network claims than projected. A review of the IDR unfavorable outcomes reveals the problem lies in two areas:.

• Insurers, plans or their service providers responsible for carrying out the IDR responsibilities aren’t following the process in a timely fashion; and
• Data used by payers for projecting out of network costs at the beginning of plan years and used in the IDR process is not holding up as credible.

Although payers largely pushed for the NSA IDR process, today’s, providers have used the rules more effectively than payers. Payers have struggled to effectively operationalize their response to the NSA IDR process. often unbeknownst to employers and other plan sponsors and fiduciaries, service providers often are unable to provide credible data to sustain reference based charge numbers used to deny provider charges, fail to timely respond to IDR negotiation requests or otherwise are unsuccessful in defending out-of-network denials under the IDR process, resulting in health plans being obligated to pay claims much higher than budgeted. Payers have brought suits complaining that providers and their billing intermediaries have overwhelmed the system by submitting large numbers of allegedly ineligible disputes, inflating out-of-network reimbursement at plans’ (and ultimately consumers’) expense. Providers have disputed these allegations.

The most recent decision came on May 22, 2026, when the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dismissed, with prejudice, all seven claims that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas (a division of Health Care Service Corporation) brought against HaloMD, the largest filer of IDR disputes, and affiliated provider defendants. BCBS Texas accused HaliMD and the providers in that suit of RICO, fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and related state-law claims, alleging that the defendants gamed the federal and Texas IDR processes by attesting to eligibility on disputes that were not eligible—seeking, by the defense’s account, to unwind tens of thousands of binding IDR awards. 

The court treated those Blue Cross claims as damages tethered to the IDR awards themselves and therefore an impermissible collateral attack on determinations Congress made binding and largely insulated from judicial review. The court also declined to read the injunctive-relief request as a freestanding cause of action. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas v. HaloMD, LLC, No. 5:25-cv-00132-RWS (E.D. Tex. May 22, 2026).

The Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas v. HaloMD, LLC ruling tracked a nearly identical outcome weeks earlier in the April 2026 suit by Anthem Blue Cross (Elevance Health’s California subsidiary) against HaloMD and affiliated providers. In Anthem Blue Cross Life & Health Ins. Co. v. HaloMD LLC, No. 8:25-cv-01467-KES (C.D. Cal. 2026), the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed without leave to amend the payer’s suit, reasoning that the No Surprises Act forecloses judicial review of IDR payment determinations on all but narrow grounds, and that a certified IDR entity’s payment determination necessarily incorporates the threshold eligibility determination—closing the door on the payer’s theory that it was challenging “eligibility” rather than the award. 

These were not isolated results. With the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas Eastern District of Texas decision, four federal courts already rejected comparable insurer attempts to relitigate IDR awards within roughly six weeks, with parallel dismissals also reported in the Middle District of Florida and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The statutory anchor running through the decisions is the NSA’s limitation on judicial review of IDR determinations in 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-111.

The practical lesson is twofold. 

• For providers and their billing partners, the binding nature of IDR awards remains a meaningful shield, but the same volume-and-eligibility concerns driving this litigation are now embedded in the regulatory framework, which is designed to keep ineligible disputes out of the process in the first place.
• For payers, courts are signaling that collateral litigation is a poor substitute for fixing eligibility and communication problems at the front end—precisely what the new operational rule attempts to do through CARCs/RARCs, portal-documented open negotiation, the five-business-day eligibility deadline, the 50-item batching cap, and the IDR Registry. 

Key Takeaways for Plans, Payers, and Employers

For plan sponsors, self-insured employers, issuers, and their third party administrators, the action items are concrete. Payers must begin mapping the CARC/RARC requirement into their remittance and EDI workflows, confirm that initial-payment and denial disclosures will carry the new legal-name and registration-number elements, and prepare to register in the IDR Registry once functionality opens.

Concurrently, plan sponsors and fiduciaries also should assess the reasonability and appropriateness of processes and compensation used by their third party administrators and brokers in forecasting plan out-of-network costs for defensibility in the IDR process, audit the adequacy of their service providers handling of IDR response to provider requests for negotiation and IDR challenges under the IDR rules to identify potential costs resulting from missteps in the performance of these functions, and review contracts to ensure contracts appropriately assign and hold service providers responsible and accountable for performing these functions.

Many employer and other plan sponsors and fiduciaries conducting these reviews are surprised to discover their plans and they are exposed to or actually have already paid significantly higher than projected out-of-network costs due to the use or cost data undefesible under these rules, failures by their vendors to timely handle or other bungling of IDR rules responsibilities or both. Employers and plans with these issues are at risk for facing stop loss denials for bungled claims handling, higher stop loss and other renewal costs and other unexpected liabilities. Keeping in mind that the Labor Department views NSA administration and selection, oversight and management, and compensation of vendors as fiduciary conduct, employers also should verify that vendors handling these duties assume named fiduciary status for these responsibilities and document the efforts of the employer or plan fiduciary that selects these vendors and their compensation under ERISA’s fiduciary responsibility rules.

Both payers and providers should revisit internal protocols so open negotiation notices and responses are submitted through the portal within the new deadlines, and so requests for additional information from certified IDR entities are answered within the five-business-day window. Given the staggered applicability dates, organizations should watch for the Departments’ implementing guidance, which will control when several of the operational changes actually bind.

As this provides only a high-level summary of a lengthy and technical rulemaking, plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries and vendors, payers, and providers should review the full final rule and consult counsel before relying on any single provision, particularly given the phased effective dates and forthcoming guidance.

For Help or More Information

The author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer advises health care providers, employer and union sponsored self-insured group heath plans, their sponsors and fiduciaries, insurers, their service and technology providers, and other health industry clients on NSA and other coverage and payment, enrollment, compliance programs, government investigations, transaction due diligence, reimbursement compliance and disputes, audits and investigations, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management and legislative and regulatory affairs. She is available to assist your organization in assessing the impact of these developments and navigating the compliance and strategic steps that follow. For more information about these  or other health care, managed care and other health benefits, or other health care developments, please contact Ms. Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you receive future updates by registering on our Solutions Law Press, Inc. Website and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy.

About the Author

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is an American College of Employee Benefits Counsel and a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) attorney and advisor board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization peer peer celebrated as “Top Rated Lawyer” and “LEGAL LEADER™ “Top Rated Lawyer” and “Best Lawyer” for her work in ERISA & Employee Benefits Law, Health Care Law, Labor and Employment Law, and Business and Commercial Law.

Nationally recognised for her decades of leading edge health and other employee benefits and insurance, compensation, human resources and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications, Ms. Stamer is well known for her decades of pragmatic, leading edge work, scholarship and thought leadership on health benefit and other health and managed care, privacy and data security and other employee benefit, insurance, and health industry legal, public policy and operational concerns. 

Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns.  As a a key focus of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, and insurers; managed care and insurance organizations; third party administrators and other health benefit service providers; hospitals, health care systems and other health care providers, accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations, group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; consultants; investors; EMR, claims, payroll and other technology, billing and reimbursement and other services and product vendors; products and solutions consultants and developers; investors; managed care organizations, self-insured health and other employee benefit plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers, insurers and other payers, health industry advocacy and other service providers and groups and other health and managed care industry clients as well as federal and state legislative, regulatory, investigatory and enforcement bodies and agencies.

Her experience includes more than 35 years of leading edge work for employer and other plan sponsors, plans and their fiduciaries, insurers, third party administrators, health care clearinghouses and other health care, insurance and other data and technology providers, and others on health and other employee benefits design, administration, compliance, and policy including decades of work on fiduciary compliance and risk management; eligibility, coverage and other plan mandates; administrative simplification and transparency; PBM, pharmacy and pharmaceutical management and regulation; surprise billing and other non-par provider; direct provider, vendor and other credentialing, contracting and management; and other managed care and insurance; high deductible, minimum or level premium, captive and other non traditional funding; and agency and private audits, investigations and enforcement; and other insured and self-insured health benefit contracting, design, administration, regulation, fiduciary and other liability managment, and other design, compliance, risk management, defense, and operations solutions.

She also has extensive experience helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, health plans and insurers, health IT, life sciences and other health industry clients prevent, investigate, manage and resolve  sexual assault, abuse, harassment and other organizational, provider and employee misconduct and other performance and behavior; manage Section 1557, Section 504, Civil Rights Act and other discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance; vendors and suppliers; contracting and other terms of participation, medical billing, reimbursement, claims administration and coordination, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare/Medicaid Advantage, ERISA and other payers and other provider-payer relations, contracting, compliance and enforcement; Form 990 and other nonprofit and tax-exemption; fundraising, investors, joint venture, and other business partners; quality and other performance measurement, management, discipline and reporting; physician and other workforce recruiting, performance management, peer review and other investigations and discipline, wage and hour, payroll, gain-sharing and other pay-for performance and other compensation, training, outsourcing and other human resources and workforce matters; board, medical staff and other governance; strategic planning, process and quality improvement; meaningful use, EMR, HIPAA and other technology,  data security and breach and other health IT and data; STARK, ant kickback, insurance, and other fraud prevention, investigation, defense and enforcement; audits, investigations, and enforcement actions; trade secrets and other intellectual property; crisis preparedness and response; internal, government and third-party licensure, credentialing, accreditation, HCQIA and other peer review and quality reporting, audits, investigations, enforcement and defense; patient relations and care;  internal controls and regulatory compliance; payer-provider, provider-provider, vendor, patient, governmental and community relations; facilities, practice, products and other sales, mergers, acquisitions and other business and commercial transactions; government procurement and contracting; grants; tax-exemption and not-for-profit; privacy and data security; training; risk and change management; regulatory affairs and public policy; process, product and service improvement, development and innovation, and other legal and operational compliance and risk management, government and regulatory affairs and operations concerns. to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Department of Insurance, Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, trucking, alcohol and firearm, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement;  and other strategic and operational concerns.

Former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security Privatization reform, miss Stamer also has extensive legislative and regulatory affairs experience on federal, state and international employee benefits, healthcare, workforce, education, insurance, data privacy and security, antitrust, and other regulations and reforms.

In addition, Ms. Stamer contributes her time and leadership to numerous policy, professional, civil and other organizations, Ms. Stamer currently or previously served as the Scribe leading annual agency meetings on HIPAA and other issues with the Department of Health and Human Services; leadership Council Representative, speaker, author and faculty lead for the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits; the ABA International Section International Employment Law Committee and International Life Sciences Committee Chair; the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section Medicine and Law Committee Chair and Employee Benefits and Worker’s Compensation Committees Vice Chair; the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair and Risk Management Interest Group Chair; the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group Chair and Welfare Benefit, Fiduciary Responsibility, and Plan Terminations and Transactions Committees Chair; Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association; a Southwest Benefits Association Board Member; a SHRM Consultants National and Region IV Board Chair; WEB National Board Member and Dallas Chapter President; National Kidney Foundation of North Texas Board Member and Compliance Chair; Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency Board President; a North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member; and other leadership involvement in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations.

Author of hundreds of highly regarded works on health and other benefits, human resources, health care, insurance, data privacy and security and other related concerns, examples of these publications include “Transparent PBM Contracting,” “ACOs, Direct Contracting: Legal & Practical Challenges For Employers, Providers & TPAs,” “The Medicare Advantage Contracting Manual,” “Third Party Administrator (TPA) Contracting Principles and Strategies and a multitude of other publications and presentations. 

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press™

Solutions Law Press™ provides health care, insurance, human resources and employee benefit, data and technology, regulatory and operational performance, and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education. These include extensive resources on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns. If you find this of interest, you also be interested reviewing some of our other Solutions Law Press™ resources or training.

If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here.

NOTICE: These statements and materials are for general information and purposes only. They do not establish an attorney-client relationship, are not legal advice or an offer or commitment to provide legal advice, and do not serve as a substitute for legal advice. Readers are urged to engage competent legal counsel for consultation and representation considering the specific facts and circumstances presented in their unique circumstances at the particular time. No comment or statement in this publication is to be construed as legal advice or admission. Solutions Law Press and its authors reserve the right to qualify or retract any of these statements at any time. Likewise, the content is not tailored to any particular situation and does not necessarily address all relevant issues. Because the law constantly and often evolves, subsequent developments that could change the currency and completeness of this discussion are likely. Solutions Law Press and its authors disclaim and have no responsibility to provide any update or otherwise notify anyone of any fact or law-specific nuance, change, limitation, or other condition that might affect the suitability of reliance upon these materials or information otherwise conveyed in connection with this program. Readers may not rely upon, are solely responsible for, and assume the risk and all liabilities resulting from their use of this publication.

Circular 230 Compliance. The following disclaimer is included to ensure that we comply with U.S. Treasury Department Regulations. Any statements contained herein are not intended or written by the writer to be used, and nothing contained herein can be used by you or any other person, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related transaction or matter addressed herein.

©2026 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press.™ For information about licensing for republication, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.