Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 6, 2026

The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score (PRIUS): A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
Published on: February 19, 2021
When Protections Work but Processes Stall: Evaluating the No Surprises Act's Implementation Record
Kennah Watts1, Jack Hoadley1, Kevin Lucia1
1Georgetown University.
Abstract:
The No Surprises Act aimed to accomplish two objectives: protect consumers from surprise medical bills and contain health care costs. While the statute has successfully accomplished its first aim, implementation of the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process-the process within the law intended to settle payment disputes and contain costs-has been wrought with litigation and rulemaking challenges. As a result, implementation has led to unintended consequences that may inadvertently add to, rather than reduce, health care costs. This article provides insights on the successes and challenges of rulemaking, and offers suggestions on how to insulate future policies from legal challenges and issues in implementation.
Related Concept Videos
Standards of Care I
Quality Assurance
Censoring Survival Data
Guidelines and Strategies for Safe Computer Charting
Maintain Confidentiality and Security:
Role of Communication in the Nursing Process III: Evaluation and Documentation
Global Regulatory Systems
