Physician Groups Opposed Lower Premiums, Faster Payments Act

National medical organizations have voiced opposition to a legislative proposal that would replace independent dispute resolution.

Updated on Oct. 9, 2026 in Healthcare

Physician Groups Opposed Lower Premiums, Faster Payments Act

Live Poll

Should insurance companies have unilateral control over setting payment rates for out-of-network medical services?

Major physician organizations have formally opposed the Lower Premiums, Faster Payments Act introduced by Rep. Frank Pallone. The bill aims to replace the current independent dispute resolution process with payment rates calculated directly by health insurance companies.

Why it matters

Physician groups argue the bill removes essential safeguards against unreasonably low insurer payments. They claim existing federal reforms and court-directed changes regarding payment calculations remain under implementation and should be prioritized instead.

In 2025, insurers submitted offers of $1 or less on 8.2% of dispute line items, while nearly 40% of all insurer offers were at or below the qualifying payment amount.

The players

Frank Pallone

A U.S. Representative who introduced the Lower Premiums, Faster Payments Act.

The details

The proposed legislation would eliminate the independent arbitration process, shifting power to insurers to set payment rates. Opposing groups emphasize that this removes a critical check, citing instances where insurers failed to participate in arbitration or offered nominal amounts.

In 2025, insurers lost by default on 24.5% of dispute items.
Federal agencies finalized an independent dispute resolution operations rule in May 2026.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against specific payment methodologies in August 2026.
Physician organizations expressed their formal opposition on October 8, 2026.

Market Landscape

This legislative push represents a significant conflict over how medical billing arbitration is handled between providers and payers. The proposal seeks to overturn the current regulatory framework established by the No Surprises Act, creating a clear divide between hospital systems and insurance firms.

The proposed changes could significantly alter how medical providers are compensated for out-of-network services, potentially impacting the availability of specialists who accept insurance. Patients should monitor whether this bill affects the scope of covered services or network participation in their regional health plans.

The takeaway

The dispute highlights the ongoing tension in healthcare policy between balancing medical costs and ensuring fair compensation for clinicians. Readers should remain aware that these legislative changes could shift the burden of payment disputes from neutral third parties back to insurance providers.