Anesthesia Groups are “Singing the Blues.” The Transparency Crisis and Market Dominance of BCBSKC and Anthem

Commercial Contracting for Anesthesia Services: How the No Surprises Act Favors Major Insurers

By Jean Covillo, DNAP,CRNA

Managing Partner, Excel Anesthesia, LLC

Anesthesia groups are at the mercy of insurance monopolies like BCBSKC, where even a $5 rate change per unit can mean survival or collapse—and a $10 cut is devastating

The No Surprises Act (NSA), enacted in January 2022 to shield patients from unexpected medical bills, has inadvertently tilted the balance of power toward dominant insurers like Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City (BCBSKC) and Anthem, leaving healthcare providers—particularly anesthesia groups—in a precarious position. By prohibiting balance billing for out-of-network care at in-network facilities, the NSA traps anesthesia providers in a financial Catch-22: accept insurers’ below-market rates or bill out-of-network and face reimbursement capped at the insurer-calculated Qualifying Payment Amount (QPA), which often falls far below fair market value. In markets like Kansas City, where BCBSKC commands a 52% commercial insurance monopoly,^[1] even minor rate adjustments (e.g., $5–$10 per anesthesia unit) can determine whether a practice survives or collapses.

While BCBSKC has raised premiums by up to 25% for Kansas and Missouri employers since 2021,^[2] it has simultaneously slashed reimbursement rates for anesthesia services, leveraging the NSA’s independent dispute resolution, (IDR) process to delay payments and exploit systemic opacity. Federal data shows arbitrators side with providers in 80% of disputes,^[3] yet insurers routinely ignore awards, knowing small practices lack resources to enforce them. For anesthesia groups, this translates to revenue losses of 20–30%, threatening rural and urban hospital staffing and patient access. Without urgent reforms to restore transparency and fairness, the NSA risks entrenching insurer monopolies and eroding the viability of independent practices in all settings.

Why It Matters To Anesthesia Groups

The Inescapable Network Lock-in

BCBS companies maintain dominant market positions across most U.S. states, with BCBSKC holding a commanding 52% share in Kansas City and Anthem controlling the largest market share in 80 metropolitan areas nationwide.^[2] In Missouri specifically, Elevance Health (Anthem) holds a 29% market share as the state’s largest commercial insurer. This market concentration means that dropping contracts with either insurer forces most commercial claims out-of-network—creating a logistical and financial crisis for providers.

The Hidden Problem: Lack of Transparency in Health Insurance

Transparency in health insurance remains one of the biggest frustrations for providers—especially when it comes to reimbursement from dominant insurers like BCBSKC and Anthem. Across the industry, the same question keeps coming up: How can you renegotiate a contract when you don’t know which plan paid what?

The Anesthesia-Specific Impact

You try to pull a report to analyze historical payments by plan, only to discover that none of the claims list the actual plan ID. There’s no way to tell if you were reimbursed according to the proper contracted rate—or even which product line the payment applied to. You call your provider rep for help. They can’t tell you either. So without this information, you are flying blind.

You can’t negotiate or track underpayments without plan-level data
You can’t analyze which contracts are profitable—or harmful
You can’t appeal claims effectively without knowing which fee schedule was applied
Insurers can hide low-paying products in blended contracts, draining your revenue

Let’s be real: what other business relationship allows payments to be made without a way to audit for accuracy?

This opacity is particularly problematic with large, complex insurers like BCBSKC and Anthem, which offer hundreds of different products across multiple market segments. BCBSKC alone manages commercial plans, ACA marketplace plans, Medicare supplements, and previously managed Medicare Advantage plans across their 30-county service area. Anthem’s portfolio is even more complex, spanning 80 metropolitan areas with varying product lines, networks, and reimbursement schedules.

Many large plans have ceased considering rate increases entirely, with their published fee schedules becoming non-negotiable. The No Surprises Act has amplified this problem by providing insurers with additional leverage through the IDR process, which they exploit to delay payments and suppress reimbursements.^[2]

Why Is Plan Identification So Opaque?

Because it Benefits the Insurers.

Insurers gain by keeping things opaque. It limits providers’ ability to compare rates, identify underpayments, and negotiate fairly. Many refuse to disclose contract-level mapping under the guise of “proprietary information.” Recent lawsuits against BCBS companies allege that this opacity is part of systematic anticompetitive practices designed to “artificially suppress reimbursement rates for providers.”

Lack of Regulatory Mandates

No federal or state law currently requires insurers like BCBSKC or Anthem to list a specific product or contract ID on claims or remittances. The No Surprises Act and price transparency rules fall short—they don’t mandate disclosure of contract details per claim. While the Transparency in Coverage final rule requires plans to disclose negotiated rates publicly, these machine-readable files don’t help providers identify what actually paid their specific claims.

Legacy System Design and Market Fragmentation

BCBS operates as a federation of independent licensees, each with separate contracts and products. BCBSKC’s credentialing and contracting processes demonstrate this complexity, with providers required to navigate multiple network participation requirements, tax ID configurations, and service location specifications. Their three-character prefix system is for claim routing—not contract transparency.

Post-NSA, providers are now forced to contract with more plans under consolidated agreements.^[1] Many carriers like Anthem require “all-plan participation,” forcing providers to accept below-market plans bundled with stronger ones.^[1] This bundling obscures which specific products are generating revenue or losses for provider practices.^[1]

Complex, Overlapping Plan Structures

BCBSKC and Anthem offer hundreds of products: PPOs, HMOs, EPOs, ASOs, ACA plans, Medicare Advantage, and more. Many are self-funded, with employers paying claims and insurers merely administering—making contract visibility even murkier. BCBSKC’s service across 30 counties with varying network configurations creates additional complexity layers that benefit the insurer in contract negotiations.

What Should Be Required?

At minimum, every EOB or remittance from insurers like BCBSKC and Anthem should list:

The specific product name (e.g., “Blue KC PPO Bronze 2025” or “Anthem HMO Select Missouri”)
The contract ID or fee schedule used to price the claim
The group number and network status
The QPA (if applicable) and how it was calculated

This would let providers:

Audit payments accurately
Identify and challenge underpayments
Make informed contracting decisions
Understand where revenue is really coming from

Kansas has taken a pioneering step in this direction with legislation requiring “Real Time Explanation of Benefits,” mandating that insurance companies provide electronic access to patient cost estimates using standardized transaction sets.

The Monopoly: BCBSKC and Anthem’s Stranglehold

BCBSKC’s Regional Monopolistic Position

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City wields extraordinary market power across the Kansas City metropolitan area, serving approximately one million members across 30 counties in greater Kansas City and northwest Missouri, plus Johnson and Wyandotte counties in Kansas. The company holds a commanding 52% market share in the Kansas City metro area, making it virtually impossible for anesthesia providers to operate without their contracts.^[1] As the largest not-for-profit health insurer in Missouri, BCBSKC’s dominance extends beyond simple market share—it represents an essential gatekeeper for provider revenue streams.

This market concentration becomes even more pronounced when examining specific metropolitan areas within their service territory.^[2] In Lawrence, Kansas, BCBS holds 51% market share, while in Manhattan it controls an overwhelming 74% of the market.^[2] Topeka shows even more extreme concentration at 72% market share.^[2] These statistics reveal that dropping BCBSKC contracts essentially forces providers into financial suicide, as the vast majority of commercially insured patients would become out-of-network.^[2]

Anthem’s National and Regional Domination

Anthem (now Elevance Health) represents an even larger threat to provider autonomy, operating as the second-largest health insurer nationally with 44.3 million members. More significantly for contract negotiations, Anthem holds the largest market share in 80 metropolitan statistical areas across the United States—more than any other insurer. This geographical dominance provides Anthem with unparalleled leverage in provider contract negotiations.

In Missouri specifically, Elevance Health (formerly Anthem) maintains a 29% market share, making it the state’s largest commercial insurer. Nationally, while Anthem’s market share dropped slightly from 13% in 2014 to 12% in 2020, the company has strategically strengthened its position through government program growth. Between 2011 and 2021, Anthem’s Medicaid enrollment exploded from 1.8 million to 9.8 million members, demonstrating how the company has leveraged taxpayer-funded programs for spectacular growth.

The company’s dominance becomes even more concerning when examining market concentration data. Analysis of potential merger scenarios shows that in markets like Missouri, Anthem’s existing high market shares create anti-competitive environments that would be “presumed likely to enhance market power” under federal antitrust guidelines. In the Kansas City metropolitan area specifically, any additional market consolidation involving Anthem would raise significant competitive concerns.

How the No Surprises Act Amplifies Insurer Leverage Against Providers

The IDR System: Designed to Favor Big Blues

The Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) process established by the No Surprises Act has become a weapon for large insurers like BCBSKC and Anthem rather than the fair arbitration system Congress intended. Federal agencies estimated that only 17,000 claims would go through the IDR process annually, but between April 2022 and March 2023, a staggering 334,828 disputes were initiated—nearly fourteen times the original estimate.

While federal arbitrators sided with anesthesiologists and other providers in over 80% of cases during 2024, demonstrating that provider payment requests are reasonable, insurers have learned to game the system through delays and procedural manipulation.^[3] The American Society of Anesthesiologists reports that “insurers are using the No Surprises Act to hide from and delay paying for anesthesia services,” effectively forcing providers to float revenue while lengthy disputes play out.^[3]

The QPA Weapon: Artificially Suppressing Payments

The Qualified Payment Amount (QPA), ostensibly designed as a fair baseline for arbitration, has become a tool for systematic underpayment. BCBSKC’s own guidance reveals how the QPA is “derived from the plan’s median contracted rate for a particular service” and represents “the amount Blue KC has made the allowable for the non-participating provider’s payment on the claim.” However, the AMA and American Hospital Association have sued the federal government, arguing that the final rule “overemphasizes the QPA in ways that favor insurers.”

This QPA manipulation allows insurers like BCBSKC and Anthem to systematically underpay providers while maintaining plausible deniability. Since “insurers know they can obtain payment rates through IDR arbitration near the below-market QPA,” they have little incentive to negotiate fair contracts. The result is a race to the bottom in provider reimbursement, with the No Surprises Act providing legal cover for this systematic underpayment.

Market Concentration: The Numbers Don’t Lie

Current market analysis reveals the true scope of insurer dominance that enables this systematic exploitation. According to the American Medical Association’s 2023 Competition in Health Insurance study, 73% of metropolitan statistical area-level commercial markets are highly concentrated, with 48% of markets having a single insurer controlling at least 50% of market share.

This concentration has worsened since the No Surprises Act’s implementation. From 2014 to 2022, the share of highly concentrated commercial markets rose from 71% to 73%. More troubling, 53% of markets that were highly concentrated in 2014 became even more concentrated, while 29% of previously competitive markets crossed the threshold into high concentration.

For anesthesia providers, this concentration creates an impossible negotiating environment. When a single insurer like BCBSKC controls 52% of the Kansas City market, or when Anthem dominates 80 metropolitan areas nationally, providers face a stark choice: accept below-market rates or lose access to the majority of their potential patient base.

What’s Being Done?

Regulatory Push

CMS has taken some steps through machine-readable in-network rate files and transparency requirements, but these don’t help providers identify what actually paid their claims. The Transparency in Coverage final rule requires disclosure of negotiated rates but falls short of providing claim-level transparency needed to audit payments from complex insurers like BCBSKC and Anthem.

Provider Advocacy Against Market Concentration

Medical societies and hospital associations are fighting for more transparency and challenging the systematic underpayment enabled by market concentration. The AMA has adopted policies supporting greater health care transparency and has outlined eight specific ways to improve price transparency, including requiring health plans to provide complete, real-time cost-sharing information. The AMA has also advocated for fairness in No Surprises Act implementation, challenging administration rules that favor insurers over providers.

Recent antitrust lawsuits against BCBS companies, including dozens of health systems and physician groups filing new cases following a $2.8 billion settlement in 2024, highlight provider frustration with systematic underpayment. These lawsuits challenge “longstanding market practices and their impact on provider reimbursements,” specifically targeting market concentration that enables contract manipulation.

State-Level Action

Some states are considering or have passed legislation requiring more detailed EOBs, but adoption and enforcement vary significantly when facing opposition from dominant insurers. Missouri has proposed transparency legislation that would establish criteria for health care quality and cost-efficiency data disclosure. However, most states still lack explicit requirements for EOB content, despite the near-universal use of these forms.

What Can You Do Now?

Document and Escalate: Keep records of every instance where plan info is missing—use them in negotiations with BCBSKC and Anthem representatives
Demand Disclosure: When signing or renewing contracts, require insurers to include product names and contract IDs on all remits
Engage with Advocacy Groups: Support state and national lobbying efforts pushing for transparency reform and challenging market concentration

For anesthesia providers specifically, experts recommend working closely with surgical partners to align anesthesia services with pre-authorized surgical procedures and creating pricing estimates for patients.^[1] However, these strategies provide limited protection against the systematic underpayment enabled by market concentration.^[2]

Bottom Line

It is not acceptable for insurers like BCBSKC and Anthem to obscure which plan or contract is being used to pay a claim, particularly given their overwhelming market dominance. When BCBSKC controls 52% of the Kansas City market and Anthem dominates 80 metropolitan areas nationally, this lack of transparency becomes a weapon against fair competition.^[2]

This lack of transparency:

Harms providers by preventing accurate payment auditing
Undermines fair contracting by eliminating negotiation leverage
Obstructs informed, efficient care delivery
Enables systematic underpayment through market manipulation

The No Surprises Act, while protecting patients, has inadvertently strengthened the positions of dominant insurers like BCBSKC and Anthem in contract negotiations.^[2] These companies now use the IDR process to delay payments, exploit the QPA calculation to suppress reimbursements, and leverage their market dominance to force providers into accepting below-market contracts.^[2]

The only way this changes is through continued pressure—provider advocacy, regulatory reform, antitrust enforcement, and contract-level demands for accountability. With market concentration reaching crisis levels and the No Surprises Act being weaponized against providers, transparency reforms are more critical than ever for provider financial viability and patient access to care.^[2]

References