The debate surrounding HaloMD's analysis of the No Surprises Act has evolved beyond a simple disagreement about numbers. Patrick Velliky's pushback against critics of his company's research methodology illuminates a critical fault line in healthcare policy: who gets to define success when it comes to surprise billing prevention, and what evidence actually proves it?
HaloMD, a company that helps health systems manage out-of-network costs, has staked significant credibility on claims that the No Surprises Act is delivering measurable results in reducing unexpected patient bills. Velliky, serving as the company's chief external affairs officer, has become the public face of this assertion. His willingness to defend the analysis against skeptics suggests HaloMD views this positioning as strategically valuable—positioning the company as a trusted voice on healthcare cost transparency at a time when regulators and health system leaders desperately want evidence that existing protections are working.
What makes this dynamic particularly relevant for health system executives and healthcare IT vendors is the underlying question of analytical independence. When a company whose business model depends on out-of-network cost management publishes research suggesting that regulations addressing surprise billing are effective, healthcare leaders rightfully ask whether the methodology serves the evidence or the other way around. Velliky's defense suggests HaloMD believes its analysis is sound, but the timing and positioning of the research—coupled with the company's active lobbying presence—inevitably raises questions about motivation.
The broader context matters here. Health systems continue to struggle with the operational complexity of the No Surprises Act. Many remain uncertain whether their surprise billing rates have genuinely improved or whether they've simply become more effective at tracking and reporting these incidents. If independent research contradicts HaloMD's optimistic framing, health system leaders need to understand why before making compliance or technology investment decisions based on either narrative.
For vendors in this space, the HaloMD situation presents both a warning and an opportunity. The warning: becoming too publicly associated with any particular interpretation of regulatory effectiveness creates vulnerability when competing research emerges. The opportunity: health systems are actively seeking credible third-party validation of their surprise billing reduction efforts, creating demand for genuinely independent analysis.
Velliky's framing of the criticism as a misunderstanding of his analysis suggests HaloMD may be conflating different metrics—perhaps measuring something the company can legitimately claim success on while critics measure something different. This is a common dynamic in healthcare policy debates, where definitions matter enormously. Is HaloMD measuring absolute reduction in surprise bills, percentage reduction among insured patients, market-wide trends, or something else entirely? Clarifying these methodological choices would either strengthen or undermine the company's credibility.
The real issue for health system leaders isn't whether HaloMD's analysis is correct—it's that they need access to research conducted independently of vendor interests to make informed decisions about surprise billing prevention. If HaloMD's conclusions are sound, they should withstand scrutiny from academic researchers and policy organizations without vested interests in the outcome.
As the healthcare industry continues wrestling with surprise billing's persistence, the credibility of the research informing policy and technology decisions cannot be taken for granted. Health systems deserve vendors who contribute to that conversation, but not as the primary voices defining what success looks like.
Reporting basis: healthcaredive.com. Analysis by the HTC editorial desk.