An Administrative Fee Is Not the Answer to UHC’s Lactation Reimbursement Cut
UnitedHealthcare’s reimbursement changes have left many lactation practices trying to determine how they can continue providing financially sustainable care.
The concern is understandable. Lactation visits are often lengthy, clinically complex and dyadic. The provider is assessing the mother while also evaluating feeding, milk transfer, weight concerns, oral function and other issues affecting the infant. When a payer recognizes only the mother’s portion of that work, the reimbursement may no longer support the traditional 90-minute or two-hour appointment.
However, charging the patient an “administrative fee” to make up the difference is generally not an appropriate solution for an in-network provider.
You Cannot Rename the Balance and Bill the Patient
Most participating-provider agreements prohibit providers from billing members additional amounts for covered services beyond the patient’s assigned copayment, coinsurance or deductible.
The exact language varies by payer and contract, but the principle is usually the same: the provider agrees to accept the payer’s allowed amount as payment in full for a covered service.
Calling the additional charge an administrative fee, access fee, coordination fee, supply fee or practice fee does not necessarily make it permissible. If the fee is required for the patient to receive the covered lactation visit—or if it is being charged specifically because the contracted reimbursement is inadequate—the payer may treat it as prohibited balance billing.
The issue is not simply what the fee is called. The issue is what the patient is actually paying for.
If an insured patient must pay an extra $50 before receiving an in-network office visit, and that $50 exists to supplement the payer’s reimbursement for the visit, it is difficult to separate that charge from the covered service.
A consent form does not automatically correct the problem. A patient cannot waive protections contained in a provider’s network agreement simply by signing a practice policy.
Travel Fees Are Different—but Still Require Caution
A travel fee for a home visit is different from an administrative fee added to an office appointment.
The payer may reimburse the professional service without reimbursing the provider’s travel time, mileage, tolls or extended service area. In that situation, a separately disclosed travel charge may be permissible if:
The provider’s contract does not prohibit it.
The fee applies specifically to travel rather than clinical care.
The charge is clearly disclosed before the appointment.
The patient has a genuine option to receive care without the travel charge, such as an office or telehealth appointment when clinically appropriate.
The fee is applied consistently and is not disguised balance billing.
Applicable state law allows it.
That does not mean every payer automatically permits travel fees. Each contract and applicable state requirement still needs to be reviewed.
An office visit, however, has no comparable travel expense. Adding an administrative fee to every UHC office appointment because UHC reduced reimbursement is much more likely to be viewed as charging the member for part of a covered service.
The Difficult Answer: The Appointment Model Has to Change
If UHC’s allowed amount no longer supports a 90-minute or two-hour office visit, the safer response is to adjust the amount of time included in that appointment—not transfer the payer’s reimbursement shortfall to the patient through a mandatory fee.
That may mean scheduling a shorter initial office visit, addressing the most urgent clinical concerns and having the patient return for a follow-up visit when additional covered care is medically necessary.
For example, the provider may need to:
Complete the immediate maternal lactation assessment.
Address the most pressing feeding concern.
Develop a focused initial care plan.
Schedule a follow-up to reassess progress and address remaining concerns.
This is not about unnecessarily dividing one service into multiple claims. Each appointment must be medically necessary, independently documented and supported by the patient’s condition. Providers should never schedule redundant visits solely to generate additional reimbursement.
But providers are also not contractually obligated to donate unlimited time because a payer reduced its reimbursement.
A payer cannot reasonably expect a provider to continue delivering two hours of professional care for a rate that supports a substantially shorter appointment. If reimbursement changes, the structure and scope of the appointment may also have to change.
Do Not Sacrifice Documentation to Preserve Face-to-Face Time
Shortening an appointment does not mean reducing required documentation or attempting to complete uncompensated work after hours.
The record must still support:
The patient assessed
The services performed
The clinical findings
The diagnoses addressed
The care plan
The medical necessity of any follow-up
The time involved when required by the reported code
Providers should build documentation, care coordination and necessary follow-up communication into the operational cost of the service. If the reimbursement does not cover that work, the practice must reconsider the length and structure of the service—not simply relabel part of the covered work as an administrative expense.
Optional Services Must Be Truly Optional
Practices may be able to charge separately for certain noncovered products or services, depending on their contracts and state law. Examples might include optional retail products, classes, memberships or services that are genuinely separate from the patient’s covered clinical care.
The distinction matters.
A service is not truly optional if the patient must purchase it to access an in-network appointment. A membership is not separate from covered care if patients who decline it cannot receive the covered service. An administrative fee is not unrelated to the visit if its purpose is to close the gap between the billed charge and UHC’s allowed amount.
Before implementing any patient charge, the practice should ask:
Would this fee exist if UHC had not reduced its reimbursement?
If the honest answer is no, the charge deserves additional contract and legal review before it is collected.
UHC Created the Sustainability Problem
UnitedHealthcare continues to describe lactation as dyadic care while its reimbursement structure may no longer adequately recognize payable services for both members of that dyad.
That creates a real clinical and financial problem. An IBCLC cannot meaningfully evaluate breastfeeding without considering both the lactating parent and the feeding infant. Removing or restricting reimbursement for the infant’s portion of that work does not make the infant’s needs disappear.
Providers should continue challenging the policy, requesting clarification regarding payable infant services and seeking appropriate fee-schedule increases. But while those objections are pending, practices must operate within their existing network agreements.
The fact that the reimbursement is inadequate does not automatically create a right to charge the patient the difference.
Practical Options for In-Network Practices
Practices affected by the UHC reduction should consider:
Reviewing the actual participating-provider agreement and applicable administrative policies
Requesting a written fee-schedule increase
Requesting written identification of payable infant codes
Shortening standard UHC office appointments to a financially sustainable length
Scheduling medically necessary follow-up visits
Clearly separating maternal and infant assessments and documentation
Offering home visits with a properly reviewed and disclosed travel policy
Evaluating whether remaining in network is financially sustainable
Obtaining payer-specific or legal review before implementing any mandatory patient fee
Providers should not assume a strategy is compliant merely because another practice is using it. Enforcement may occur through member complaints, audits, recoupments, corrective-action plans or network termination—sometimes long after the fee was first collected.
The Bottom Line
UHC’s reimbursement cut should not be minimized. It places lactation providers in the impossible position of being expected to deliver dyadic care while being paid for only part of that care.
But a mandatory administrative fee is not a safe way to restore the lost reimbursement. For most in-network practices, it risks violating the contractual prohibition against billing members beyond their assigned cost share for covered services.
A legitimate, separately disclosed travel fee may be different when it is permitted by the provider’s contract and state law. A fee added to an office visit simply because the payer’s reimbursement is too low is much harder to defend.
If the allowed amount no longer supports an extended appointment, the honest operational response is to shorten the visit, provide the care that can appropriately be completed within that time and schedule a medically necessary follow-up.
Providers should continue fighting for reimbursement that reflects the real work of dyadic lactation care. Until UHC corrects the underlying problem, however, the financial burden cannot simply be renamed and transferred to the patient.
This article provides general educational information and is not legal advice. Provider contracts, plan requirements and state laws vary. Practices should review their individual agreements and obtain qualified legal or compliance guidance before implementing additional patient fees.
Comments