By JASON HINES
On August 1, 2025, Capital Ladies’s Care (CWC), one of many largest OB/GYN practices within the Mid-Atlantic area went out-of-network with UnitedHealthcare, affecting tens of thousands of women throughout Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Washington D.C. The contract dispute between Capital Ladies’s Care (CWC) and UnitedHealthcare provides an interesting case research in how value transparency information can illuminate the actual dynamics behind these high-stakes negotiations.
The Public Battle
Capital Ladies’s Care, with greater than 250 physicians and healthcare professionals, confirmed that its settlement with UnitedHealthcare would lapse regardless of ongoing negotiations. The apply urged sufferers to contact UHC to voice their issues about dropping entry to their suppliers.
UnitedHealthcare fired again with detailed public claims on their website, alleging that CWC “refused to maneuver off its calls for for double-digit value hikes” and is “considerably increased value at present in comparison with peer suppliers all through Maryland and Virginia”. UHC offered particular examples, claiming {that a} vaginal supply from CWC would value “greater than 120% increased – or over $2,600 extra – than the typical value of different OB/GYN suppliers”.
However what does the precise value transparency information reveal about these competing claims?
What the Transparency Knowledge Exhibits
Utilizing Capital Ladies’s Care’s negotiated charges from UnitedHealthcare’s personal machine-readable recordsdata, we analyzed a pattern of frequent OB/GYN procedures from Maryland charge information. Whereas this represents solely a subset of all procedures and focuses particularly on Maryland charges, it offers useful insights into the actual cost dynamics between these organizations. The info paints a extra nuanced image than both celebration’s public statements recommend.
Knowledge Methodology Be aware: Our evaluation examined negotiated charges for Capital Ladies’s Care from publicly out there machine-readable recordsdata, specializing in Maryland suppliers and filtering out statistical outliers (charges under 50% or above 500% of Medicare). We analyzed charges for each UnitedHealthcare and CareFirst throughout three frequent OB/GYN procedures the place each payers had ample information.
CWC’s Price Place vs Different Payers
Our evaluation of three frequent OB/GYN procedures in Maryland reveals that CWC’s charges with UnitedHealthcare have been really fairly aggressive in comparison with different main payers:
For the three procedures the place each UHC and CareFirst have negotiated charges with CWC:
- CPT 56515 (Vulvar Lesion Destruction): UHC paid $401 vs CareFirst’s $617 (53.9% distinction)
- CPT 57288 (Sling Operation): UHC paid $1,163 vs CareFirst’s $1,254 (7.8% distinction)
- CPT 58558 (Hysteroscopy): UHC paid $2,294 vs CareFirst’s $2,318 (1.0% distinction)
This pattern information suggests UnitedHealthcare was already getting favorable charges from CWC in comparison with different main payers, calling into query UHC’s claims about CWC being “considerably increased value.”
The Medicare Benchmark Actuality
Each UHC and CareFirst have been paying CWC charges nicely above Medicare in our pattern:
- UnitedHealthcare: 143-175% of Medicare charges
- CareFirst: 166-220% of Medicare charges
Whereas CareFirst paid increased charges, UnitedHealthcare’s charges have been nonetheless substantial premiums over authorities reimbursement, suggesting the “double-digit will increase” CWC requested could have been makes an attempt to align with market charges different payers have been keen to pay.
Vital Limitation: This evaluation relies on a pattern of three procedures in Maryland solely. A complete evaluation would require inspecting all process codes throughout all markets the place CWC operates to completely validate these patterns.
The Strategic Context: Market Share Issues
Understanding why CWC might need walked away requires inspecting UnitedHealthcare’s place within the Maryland market. In keeping with KFF information, UnitedHealthcare holds solely 9% of Maryland’s large group market share as of 2023. This comparatively small market place gave CWC important leverage.
The Math of Strolling Away:
- UHC represents a small portion of CWC’s affected person base
- CWC has contracts with bigger payers (Aetna, CareFirst, Cigna) paying increased charges
- The apply serves over 250 suppliers throughout a number of states
- Strolling away from 9% of the market to ascertain charge precedent makes strategic sense
Evaluating UnitedHealthcare’s Public Claims
UHC’s web site makes a number of particular claims that we will consider towards transparency information:
Declare 1: “CWC is considerably increased value in comparison with peer suppliers”
Evaluation: Partially Deceptive
Whereas CWC could cost greater than some suppliers, our evaluation exhibits UHC was paying aggressive charges in comparison with different main payers for a similar companies. The “peer supplier” comparability lacks context about geographic market charges and supplier high quality variations.
Declare 2: “Double-digit value hikes that will make them 30% increased than common”
Evaluation: Lacking Context
This declare doesn’t account for:
- How UHC’s present charges in comparison with different payers
- Whether or not the “common” consists of lower-quality or otherwise positioned suppliers
- Regional value variations within the costly Mid-Atlantic market
Declare 3: Particular process value comparisons
Evaluation: Doubtlessly Correct however Incomplete
UHC’s claims about supply prices could also be correct, however they don’t present the complete market context. The transparency information exhibits important charge variation throughout payers and procedures, suggesting that “costly” is relative to the comparability set chosen.
How Worth Transparency Modifications the Recreation
This dispute illustrates how value transparency information is reshaping healthcare negotiations in a number of methods:
Knowledgeable Leverage
Suppliers like CWC can now see precisely how their charges examine throughout payers, enabling extra strategic negotiations. CWC knew they have been giving UHC favorable charges in comparison with CareFirst.
Public Accountability
Each events made public claims that may now be fact-checked towards precise negotiated charges. UHC’s claims about CWC being “considerably increased value” are extra nuanced when seen towards the complete payer panorama.
Market Benchmarking
The transparency information reveals that:
- Regional markets have substantial charge variations
- Supplier high quality and market place justify charge premiums
- “Costly” is relative to the comparability being made
Strategic Positioning
For a apply with CWC’s market place, sustaining charge self-discipline throughout payers turns into essential. Accepting below-market charges from one payer can undermine negotiations with others.
The Actual Winner: Market Transparency
Whereas sufferers are caught in the midst of this dispute, the broader healthcare market advantages from the transparency this battle offers. The general public availability of precise negotiated charges means:
- Sufferers could make extra knowledgeable decisions about suppliers and plans
- Employers can higher consider insurance coverage plan worth propositions
- Suppliers can benchmark their charges towards precise market information
- Payers should justify charge choices with actual information quite than selective comparisons
Trying Ahead: Classes for Healthcare Negotiations
The CWC-UHC dispute provides a number of classes for future healthcare contract negotiations:
- Worth transparency information is now a negotiating instrument – Each side can and can use precise charge comparisons to assist their positions
- Market share issues in charge negotiations – UHC’s 9% Maryland market share restricted their leverage towards a big, established supplier
- Public relations battles require information backing – Claims about “costly” suppliers can now be fact-checked towards precise negotiated charges
- Supplier consolidation creates negotiating energy – Massive practices like CWC can afford to stroll away from unfavorable contracts
The Path to Decision
For this particular dispute, the transparency information suggests each events have cheap positions:
- CWC was certainly giving UHC favorable charges in comparison with different payers, justifying their request for will increase
- UHC faces strain to manage prices for members whereas sustaining an ample supplier community
A decision doubtless requires:
- UHC acknowledging that their present charges have been under market
- CWC accepting that dramatic charge will increase have an effect on affected person prices
- Each events discovering center floor that displays true market positioning
The supply of precise negotiated charge information ought to, in principle, make these conversations extra productive by establishing shared info about market charges and supplier positioning.
Conclusion
The Capital Ladies’s Care vs UnitedHealthcare contract dispute demonstrates how value transparency is essentially altering healthcare negotiations. Whereas each events made public claims supporting their positions, our evaluation of precise negotiated charge information from Maryland reveals a extra advanced story the place market dynamics, strategic positioning, and regional components all play essential roles.
Key takeaways from our information evaluation:
- UHC was paying aggressive charges in comparison with different main payers for the procedures we examined
- CWC’s determination to stroll away makes strategic sense given UHC’s restricted 9% Maryland market share
- Each payers have been paying nicely above Medicare charges, suggesting room for negotiation
Vital caveats: Our evaluation examined solely three frequent procedures from Maryland information. A complete analysis would require analyzing all process codes throughout all markets the place CWC operates to completely validate these patterns.
As extra stakeholders acquire entry to this beforehand hidden pricing data, we will count on healthcare contract negotiations to turn into extra data-driven, clear, and finally extra rational. The actual winners can be those that can successfully analyze and act on this new transparency to make higher choices about healthcare protection, supplier choice, and contract phrases.
I’ll be again on THCB to have a look at the remainder of the context for this dispute partly 2. What was the price of these companies from different suppliers available in the market?
Jason Hines is CEO of Gigasheet which delivers AI-powered value transparency market intelligence.. This was first posted on their corporate blog
