Psyhc Care

In the United States healthcare system, one of the most frustrating experiences for patients has been receiving surprise medical bills—unexpected charges that arise when patients unknowingly receive care from out-of-network providers, often during emergency situations or at in-network facilities. To address this systemic issue, Congress passed the No Surprises Act (NSA), which took effect on January 1, 2022. While the legislation broadly applies to all medical providers, its implications are especially nuanced for behavioral health and PsychCare practices.

Mental health billing is already complex due to variations in coverage, parity compliance issues, credentialing inconsistencies, and regional reimbursement discrepancies. The No Surprises Act introduces both protections for patients and challenges for providers, particularly those operating in behavioral health, where out-of-network care is more common and mental health provider networks are often narrow or inconsistent.

This guide delves deeply into the No Surprises Act, explores its legal and operational structure, and examines its real-world impact on PsychCare billing. Through a detailed review of the law, administrative guidance, practical billing considerations, and policy analysis, this article equips mental health administrators, therapists, and billing professionals with the knowledge they need to ensure compliance and avoid financial risk.

The Origins and Goals of the No Surprises Act

The Problem of Surprise Billing

Surprise medical bills generally occur when:

• Patients receive emergency services from an out-of-network provider or facility.
• Patients unknowingly receive non-emergency services from an out-of-network provider at an in-network facility (e.g., anesthesiologists, radiologists).
• Health plans fail to inform patients about out-of-network charges or lack of coverage for specific services.

Prior to the NSA, millions of patients faced financially crippling out-of-network bills despite seeking care in good faith.

Legislative Genesis

The No Surprises Act was part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, signed into law in December 2020. It drew bipartisan support after years of patient advocacy, studies, and pressure from both providers and insurers. The Act was designed to:

• Protect consumers from unexpected medical bills.
• Increase transparency around pricing and coverage.
• Shift dispute resolution from patients to insurers and providers.

The Act also established new requirements for good faith estimates, provider directories, and dispute resolution mechanisms.

Key Provisions of the No Surprises Act

Balance Billing Protections

The cornerstone of the NSA is its ban on balance billing in certain circumstances. Balance billing occurs when a provider bills a patient for the difference between the provider’s charge and what the insurance pays.

Under the Act, balance billing is prohibited for:

• Emergency services, regardless of network status.
• Non-emergency services at in-network facilities by out-of-network providers.
• Air ambulance services from out-of-network providers.

Good Faith Estimates (GFE)

The NSA requires all non-emergency healthcare providers (including mental health providers) to offer a Good Faith Estimate of expected charges:

• Must be provided to uninsured or self-pay patients.
• Must include expected costs for all services reasonably expected to be delivered.
• Should be issued within certain timeframes (e.g., within 1 business day of scheduling a service).

This provision has serious implications for PsychCare, where uninsured/self-pay patients make up a significant population.

Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR)

The Act introduces an arbitration-based process to resolve payment disputes between providers and insurers when a patient is not involved. If no agreement is reached on out-of-network reimbursement, either party can initiate the IDR process. Key elements include:

• “Baseball-style” arbitration: Each party submits an offer, and the arbitrator picks one.
• The IDR process must be initiated within 4 business days of failed negotiations.
• The arbitrator considers several factors, including median in-network rates, case complexity, and provider expertise.

Provider Directory Accuracy

Insurers and providers must maintain accurate and updated directories. If a patient receives care based on incorrect directory information, they cannot be charged more than in-network rates.

This provision especially impacts behavioral health due to frequent errors in provider listings, including outdated contact information and misidentified network status.

Unique Implications for PsychCare Providers

Out-of-Network Mental Health Billing Patterns

Behavioral health services have long operated under different reimbursement and network dynamics compared to physical health services. PsychCare providers are disproportionately out-of-network, for reasons such as:

• Lower in-network reimbursement rates.
• Administrative burdens of contracting.
• Credentialing delays.
• Regional workforce shortages.

Consequently, surprise billing has been more common in mental health, making NSA compliance particularly critical.

Good Faith Estimates in Therapy Practices

Good Faith Estimates are now required in most outpatient behavioral health settings. Mental health providers must:

• Inform uninsured/self-pay patients of their right to receive a GFE.
• Provide a written estimate of charges before sessions.
• Include potential recurring services (e.g., number of sessions over time).
• Keep documentation of GFEs for six years.

Failure to comply can lead to penalties and patient disputes, even when the billing discrepancy is small.

IDR Use and Challenges in PsychCare

PsychCare providers may enter arbitration more often due to:

• Disagreements over usual and customary rates.
• Insurer denials based on “medical necessity” standards.
• Services like telehealth or intensive outpatient care, which have variable reimbursement benchmarks.

Many solo or small-group therapists lack the administrative resources to engage in repeated IDR processes, posing challenges to sustainability.

Operationalizing NSA Compliance in Behavioral Health Settings

Policy and Procedure Changes

PsychCare administrators should revise internal policies to reflect NSA requirements:

• Training front-office staff on GFEs and balance billing rules.
• Updating intake forms and disclosures to include patient rights under the NSA.
• Adjusting billing software and templates to track GFE delivery and timelines.
• Coordinating with legal counsel to interpret compliance obligations.

Technology Integration

Using electronic health record (EHR) systems that support NSA compliance is crucial. Ideal features include:

• Automated GFE generation and storage.
• Time-stamped delivery confirmation.
• Easy integration of patient communications.
• Alerts for IDR timelines and deadlines.

Behavioral health EHR vendors are increasingly building NSA features into their platforms, but careful customization is still needed.

Staff Training and Workflow Optimization

NSA compliance is not a one-time task; it requires continuous workflow alignment. Training should cover:

• Recognizing out-of-network scenarios.
• Communicating GFEs transparently.
• Logging interactions in compliance logs.
• Navigating insurer disagreements without compromising care delivery.

PsychCare clinics must strike a balance between operational efficiency and compassionate patient communication.

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Incomplete Good Faith Estimates

One of the most common mistakes is providing an incomplete GFE. For example:

• Listing only the first session’s cost instead of a treatment plan’s projected total.
• Not including ancillary services (e.g., psychological testing).
• Failure to update estimates if treatment frequency changes.

Solution: Use templates and maintain real-time billing records.

Failure to Inform Patients

Providers may unintentionally violate the Act by neglecting to inform patients of their rights. This includes:

• Not displaying NSA patient notices prominently.
• Not giving uninsured patients GFE documents in a timely manner.

Solution: Automate reminders and ensure in-person or digital acknowledgment of receipt.

Arbitration Fatigue

Small PsychCare practices may face repeated IDR cases, leading to time and cost burdens. Without adequate administrative support, this can impact sustainability.

Solution: Join provider groups, use third-party billing services, and prioritize payer contract negotiations.

Legal, Ethical, and Financial Impacts

Legal Risks

Non-compliance with the NSA can result in:

• Investigations by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS).
• Civil monetary penalties (up to $10,000 per violation).
• Loss of patient trust and reputational damage.

For behavioral health providers operating on tight budgets, these risks are particularly dangerous.

Ethical Considerations

Mental health ethics codes emphasize transparency, informed consent, and non-exploitation. The NSA aligns with these values but introduces documentation demands that may detract from patient care.

Clinicians must balance ethical duty with legal documentation—being thorough but compassionate.

Financial Impact

For PsychCare providers, the Act’s impact includes:

• Potential revenue reduction from capped out-of-network charges.
• Administrative costs for compliance systems and arbitration fees.
• Fewer out-of-network billing opportunities unless negotiated contracts improve.

However, long-term benefits include:

• Stronger patient relationships due to transparency.
• Reduced billing disputes.
• Greater incentive to join payer networks, which may improve sustainability.

Case Studies and Real-World Scenarios

Solo Therapist Practice

Dr. Laila, a psychologist in private practice, sees mostly self-pay clients. After the NSA took effect, she implemented a digital form system to send GFEs automatically before the first session. She also trained her intake coordinator to walk clients through billing expectations.

Outcome: No billing disputes in the first 12 months. Client retention remained stable.

Mid-Size Group Practice

A behavioral health clinic with 12 providers faced challenges when an insurer denied telehealth IOP (intensive outpatient program) reimbursement, prompting IDR. With no dedicated billing team, the clinic hired an external firm to manage arbitration.

Outcome: The provider won the IDR case but incurred $1,200 in legal and admin fees.

Nonprofit Mental Health Center

A community health center used a grant to implement EHR upgrades that automate GFE workflows. They trained all staff and placed NSA compliance signs in both English and Spanish.

Outcome: Fewer billing complaints, improved trust with uninsured populations.

Recommendations for Behavioral Health Leaders

• Audit your billing systems quarterly for NSA compliance.
• Train all front-desk and billing staff on patient rights under the Act.
• Join professional associations like the National Council for Mental Wellbeing for policy updates.
• Invest in billing technology that integrates NSA compliance features.
• Negotiate payer contracts to reduce out-of-network reliance.
• Document everything—GFEs, patient communications, IDR filings.
• Focus on communication—clear, compassionate conversations prevent disputes.

Conclusion

The No Surprises Act represents a turning point in U.S. healthcare billing, particularly in behavioral health where systemic gaps in network adequacy and billing transparency have persisted for decades. While the Act’s requirements can feel burdensome—especially for smaller mental health practices—the benefits of clarity, consistency, and patient trust outweigh the challenges.

PsychCare providers must now operate with heightened diligence, robust documentation, and proactive communication. Those who embrace the Act’s principles—transparency, fairness, and collaboration—will not only avoid penalties but also strengthen the therapeutic alliance that is central to effective mental health care.

In a system where billing has too often been opaque and fragmented, the NSA offers a framework for integrity. The road ahead may be administratively demanding, but it holds promise for a more just and ethical future in mental health billing.

SOURCES

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). (2021). No Surprises: Understand your rights against surprise medical bills. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS). (2022). Requirements Related to Surprise Billing; Part I, II & III. Federal Register.

National Council for Mental Wellbeing. (2022). No Surprises Act Implementation for Mental Health and Substance Use Treatment Providers.

Blum, J. D. (2022). Legal considerations for mental health providers under the No Surprises Act. Journal of Health Law and Policy, 15(2), 111–128.

American Psychological Association (APA). (2022). What psychologists need to know about the No Surprises Act.

Berwick, D. M., & Hackbarth, A. D. (2021). Eliminating waste in US health care. JAMA, 307(14), 1513–1516.

Bipartisan Policy Center. (2021). Understanding the No Surprises Act: Key Provisions and Policy Impacts.

Corlette, S., Hoppe, O., & Lucia, K. (2022). Early implementation of the No Surprises Act: Health plan compliance and provider response. Health Affairs Blog.

Frank, R. G., & Glied, S. A. (2021). Better but not best: Recent reforms to address surprise medical billing. New England Journal of Medicine, 384(4), e9.

Mechanic, R. E. (2022). Surprise billing and the No Surprises Act: Economic and operational impacts. Health Affairs, 41(1), 12–20.

National Association for Behavioral Healthcare (NABH). (2022). Operational guidance for behavioral health providers: Complying with the No Surprises Act.

Schwartz, J. S., & Buntin, M. B. (2023). Surprise medical billing: Policy reform and remaining challenges. The Milbank Quarterly, 101(1), 55–83.

Stewart, M. T., & Leyenaar, J. K. (2023). Navigating good faith estimates in behavioral health. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 50(2), 250–260.

KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). (2023). Implementation and enforcement of the No Surprises Act: Key trends and enforcement data.

Creswell, J., & Abelson, R. (2022). The No Surprises Act is changing how medical bills work—But not without resistance. The New York Times.

American Medical Association (AMA). (2022). Physician guide to the No Surprises Act: Compliance and arbitration.

Zhou, C., & Cooper, Z. (2022). The financial burden of surprise medical bills: Behavioral health implications. Health Economics Review, 12(5), 1–10.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE). (2021). Potential impacts of surprise billing protections on healthcare prices and provider networks.

National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI). (2022). Mental health and the No Surprises Act: What families and patients should know.

HISTORY

Current Version
July 3, 2025

Written By:
SUMMIYAH MAHMOOD