- Experienced Personal Injury Attorney
- Trial Lawyer
- Stellar Customer Service
Texas NSA Arbitration Lawyer
You can protect your practice and recover the reimbursement you've earned with the guidance of an experienced Texas NSA Arbitration Lawyer. If insurers are shortchanging your out-of-network claims under Texas SB 1264 or the federal No Surprises Act, keep reading to learn how our team fights to get Texas providers paid what they deserve.
Highlights on this page
- Texas NSA Arbitration Lawyer — Aggressive Advocacy for Out-of-Network Medical Providers Across Texas
- Texas Senate Bill 1264 — The Framework Every Texas Provider Must Understand
- The Ten Factors That Determine Your Texas Arbitration Outcome
- How Our Texas NSA Arbitration Lawyers Handle Your Case — Step by Step
- Why Texas Insurers Are Particularly Aggressive — And How We Fight Back
Texas NSA Arbitration Lawyer — Aggressive Advocacy for Out-of-Network Medical Providers Across Texas
Texas is ground zero for surprise billing arbitration in the United States. With over one million arbitration and mediation requests submitted through the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) portal since 2020, the volume of disputes in Texas dwarfs virtually every other state. As a Texas out-of-network medical provider, you are operating in an environment where insurers have refined their underpayment strategies to an art form. At Bhatt Law Group, our **dedicated in-house NSA arbitration department** represents Texas healthcare providers in both the state’s SB 1264 arbitration process and the federal Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) system—we never outsource your cases.
From Houston to Dallas-Fort Worth, from San Antonio to Austin, from El Paso to the Rio Grande Valley, our **Texas NSA Arbitration Lawyers** handle every phase of your payment dispute: internal plan appeals, the mandatory informal settlement teleconference, arbitration submission through the TDI IDR portal, evidence presentation under the statutory ten-factor analysis, arbitration decision, post-award enforcement, and civil court action when necessary.
Call us now at (888) 489-1533 for a confidential consultation. Let our Texas NSA Arbitration Lawyers recover the full reimbursement you’ve earned while you focus on treating patients.
Texas Senate Bill 1264 — The Framework Every Texas Provider Must Understand
Texas was a national leader in surprise billing reform, enacting **Senate Bill 1264** during the 2019 legislative session. SB 1264 took effect on January 1, 2020—two full years before the federal No Surprises Act—and fundamentally changed how out-of-network payment disputes are resolved for state-regulated health plans. Understanding SB 1264’s architecture is essential for any Texas provider seeking fair compensation.
SB 1264 applies to **state-regulated health plans**, including preferred provider organizations (PPOs), exclusive provider organizations (EPOs), and health maintenance organizations (HMOs), as well as plans administered through the **Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS)** and the **Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS)**. Under this framework:
- **Balance billing is prohibited** for out-of-network emergency services and for non-emergency services at in-network facilities when the patient did not have the ability or opportunity to choose a participating provider. Willful violations can trigger disciplinary action by the Texas Medical Board.
- **Two distinct dispute resolution tracks.** SB 1264 created separate processes: **binding arbitration** for out-of-network physician and provider claims, and **non-binding mediation** for out-of-network facility and laboratory claims. Health plans must make an initial payment for covered services before arbitration or mediation is initiated.
- **Baseball-style arbitration.** The arbitrator makes a binary choice—either the provider’s billed charge or the health plan’s payment is closest to the reasonable amount. The arbiter cannot split the difference or select any other figure.
- **Ten statutory factors.** The arbitrator must evaluate the final billed charges and final reimbursement amount offered based on ten factors codified in Texas Insurance Code §1467.083, including FAIR Health benchmarking data, provider training and experience, and case complexity.
- **Aggressive 51-day timeline.** From the date arbitration is requested through the TDI IDR portal, the entire process—including the informal settlement teleconference, arbitration hearing, and final decision—must be completed within 51 days.
- **90-day filing window.** Providers must request arbitration no later than the 90th day after receiving the initial payment for the disputed service.
- **Bundling permitted.** Providers may bundle claims where the disputed amount is $5,000 or less per claim, reducing administrative burden and arbitrator fees.
- **Federal NSA applies to self-funded ERISA plans.** SB 1264 does not cover self-funded employer-sponsored plans regulated under ERISA. For these plans—which cover approximately 63% of workers with employer-sponsored coverage nationally—the federal No Surprises Act’s IDR process governs.
The Ten Factors That Determine Your Texas Arbitration Outcome
The outcome of every Texas SB 1264 arbitration turns on the **ten statutory factors** under Texas Insurance Code §1467.083. Understanding how to present evidence under each factor is what separates successful arbitration outcomes from lost revenue. Here are the ten factors and how our Texas NSA Arbitration Lawyers leverage each one:
- Factor 1 — Gross disparity analysis: Whether there is a gross disparity between the provider’s billed charge and (a) fees paid to the provider for the same services as an out-of-network provider for other enrollees, and (b) fees paid by the health plan to reimburse similarly qualified out-of-network providers for the same services in the same region. We present comprehensive payment history data and regional comparators to demonstrate that the insurer’s payment—not the provider’s bill—is the outlier.
- Factor 2 — Provider training, education, and experience: The out-of-network provider’s level of training, education, and experience. We document fellowship training, board certifications, years of practice, subspecialty expertise, and clinical leadership roles to establish that the provider’s qualifications justify above-average compensation.
- Factor 3 — Usual billed charges: The provider’s usual billed charge for comparable services with regard to other out-of-network enrollees. We compile billing data demonstrating the provider’s consistent charge structure across out-of-network cases to validate the billed amount as reasonable and customary.
- Factor 4 — Circumstances and complexity: The circumstances and complexity of the enrollee’s case, including the time and place of service. We present operative reports, clinical notes, procedure times, complication factors, and emergency circumstances to demonstrate that the case warranted premium reimbursement.
- Factor 5 — Individual enrollee characteristics: We document patient acuity, comorbidities, age, and any factors that increased the difficulty or risk of providing care.
- Factor 6 — FAIR Health 80th percentile of billed charges: The 80th percentile of all billed charges for the service performed by a provider in the same or similar specialty in the same geozip area, as reported in the FAIR Health benchmarking database. This is one of the most powerful factors for providers—we present FAIR Health data showing that the provider’s charge falls within or below this benchmark.
- Factor 7 — FAIR Health 50th percentile of allowed amounts: The 50th percentile of rates paid to participating providers in the same or similar specialty in the same geozip area, as reported in the FAIR Health benchmarking database. We contextualize this data point by showing how it compares to the insurer’s actual payment, often revealing dramatic underpayment.
- Factor 8 — Network contracting history: The history of network contracting between the provider and the health plan. We present evidence of prior contract rates, the provider’s willingness to negotiate, and any insurer conduct that contributed to the out-of-network status.
- Factor 9 — Historical percentile data: Historical data for the FAIR Health percentiles described in Factors 6 and 7. We present trend data showing how rates have evolved over time to provide context for the current dispute.
- Factor 10 — Informal settlement teleconference offer: Any offer made during the mandatory informal settlement teleconference. We strategically position our settlement offer to maximize leverage in the event the case proceeds to full arbitration.
Every element of our arbitration submission is engineered around these ten factors. Our attorneys maintain current FAIR Health datasets, Texas geozip benchmarks, and specialty-specific rate databases to ensure that every submission is backed by the strongest possible evidence.
How Our Texas NSA Arbitration Lawyers Handle Your Case — Step by Step
Texas arbitration demands precision, speed, and strategic discipline. The 90-day filing window and 51-day arbitration timeline leave zero margin for error. Here is our systematic process:
- Identify underpayment and assess eligibility: When you receive an initial payment that falls below fair market value, we immediately assess whether the claim is eligible for SB 1264 arbitration (state-regulated plan) or the federal IDR process (self-funded ERISA plan). We confirm the plan type, verify the 90-day filing deadline, and determine the dispute amount.
- Exhaust internal appeals: Before requesting arbitration, we submit formal appeals to the health plan documenting the underpayment with supporting evidence. This creates a critical evidentiary record and may resolve the dispute without arbitration.
- File arbitration through the TDI IDR portal: For SB 1264 claims, we submit the arbitration request through TDI’s Independent Dispute Resolution portal within the 90-day window. For bundled claims ($5,000 or less per claim), we aggregate related disputes to reduce per-case costs.
- Mandatory informal settlement teleconference: During the initial 30-day settlement period, all parties must participate in an informal teleconference. Historically, this stage has resolved over 90% of Texas balance-billing disputes. We prepare aggressively for this call, presenting compelling data to maximize the settlement offer. Any offer made during this call becomes Factor 10 in the arbitration analysis.
- Arbitrator selection: If the teleconference does not produce settlement, we work to select a favorable arbitrator by mutual agreement with the health plan. If no agreement is reached by Day 31, TDI assigns an arbitrator from its approved list.
- Prepare and submit arbitration evidence: We build a comprehensive submission addressing all ten statutory factors—including FAIR Health geozip data, provider credentials, clinical complexity evidence, operative reports, billing history, and regional market comparators. Every element is tailored to demonstrate that the provider’s charge is the reasonable amount.
- Arbitration decision (by Day 51): The arbitrator renders a binding decision selecting either the provider’s charge or the health plan’s payment as the reasonable amount. The arbitrator files a report on the TDI portal with the determination.
- Post-award payment and enforcement: The health plan must pay any additional amount necessary to satisfy the award within 30 days. If the insurer delays or refuses, we pursue enforcement through regulatory channels, TDI complaints, and if necessary, civil court action (which must be filed within 45 days of the arbitrator’s decision).
- Federal IDR for ERISA plan claims: For self-funded ERISA plan claims not covered by SB 1264, we initiate the federal NSA IDR process—including the 30-business-day open negotiation period, submission of final offers, and baseball-style arbitration with QPA rebuttal evidence.
Why Texas Insurers Are Particularly Aggressive — And How We Fight Back
Texas is the epicenter of NSA-related litigation and insurer resistance. Major health plans headquartered in Texas have fought the No Surprises Act in federal court, successfully striking down regulations that would have given the QPA more weight in arbitration decisions. This litigation environment emboldens Texas insurers to lowball providers with confidence. Here is how we counter their tactics:
- Exploiting the QPA on federal IDR claims: Texas-based insurers spearheaded the litigation (TMA I through TMA IV) that struck down federal regulations requiring arbitrators to give primary weight to the QPA. While this was a win for providers on federal claims, insurers still anchor to the QPA as a negotiation baseline. We present the full range of statutory factors—including patient acuity, market share, and contracted rates—to demonstrate that the QPA alone is an insufficient measure of reasonable reimbursement.
- Lowballing initial payments: After SB 1264 prohibited balance billing, some Texas insurers—including the state employee health plan administrator BCBSTX—shifted to reimbursing at in-network PPO rates for out-of-network emergency services. We challenge these artificially suppressed initial payments with independent market data showing true out-of-network rates in the Texas market.
- Abusing the mediation process for facility claims: For out-of-network facility claims, SB 1264 requires non-binding mediation rather than binding arbitration. Insurers have exploited this by using mediation as a delay tactic, refusing to participate meaningfully. We pursue aggressive strategies to break through stalling, including regulatory complaints and advocacy for legislative reform.
- Manipulating FAIR Health data interpretation: Insurers may selectively present FAIR Health Factor 7 (50th percentile of allowed amounts) while downplaying Factor 6 (80th percentile of billed charges). We present both benchmarks in full context and demonstrate how the provider’s charge aligns with the 80th percentile—the stronger provider-favorable metric.
- Downcoding and bundling reductions: Texas insurers routinely reduce reimbursement by improperly downcoding complex procedures or bundling separate services. We engage certified coding specialists and present operative reports, clinical documentation, and national coding guidelines to challenge every reduction.
- Delaying post-award payments: Even after a binding arbitration award, some insurers delay payment. We aggressively pursue the 30-day payment deadline and escalate non-compliance through TDI enforcement, regulatory complaints, and civil court action.
Why Texas Providers Choose Bhatt Law Group
Texas’s healthcare market is one of the largest, most competitive, and most litigated in the nation. The sheer volume of arbitration disputes—over one million TDI portal requests from 2020 to 2023—means Texas insurers have extensive experience resisting provider claims. When you engage Bhatt Law Group as your **Texas NSA Arbitration Lawyer**, you get:
- In-house arbitration team, never outsourced: Every case is managed, strategized, drafted, and presented by our own attorneys. We never hand your disputes off to third-party vendors.
- Deep mastery of SB 1264’s ten-factor framework: We engineer every arbitration submission around the ten statutory factors in Texas Insurance Code §1467.083. Our attorneys maintain current FAIR Health geozip datasets, Texas regional benchmarks, and specialty-specific reimbursement data for every major Texas market.
- Federal IDR expertise for ERISA plan claims: For the significant share of Texas claims governed by the federal NSA—particularly self-funded employer-sponsored plans—we bring extensive experience with federal IDR submission strategy, QPA rebuttal, and award enforcement.
- Aggressive enforcement and collections: A binding arbitration award means nothing if the insurer doesn’t pay. We have established enforcement protocols including TDI complaints, regulatory pressure, and civil court action within the 45-day filing window.
- All Texas provider types represented: We represent emergency physicians, surgeons, anesthesiologists, radiologists, pathologists, neonatologists, hospitalists, ambulatory surgical centers, and other out-of-network healthcare professionals across Texas.
Call (888) 489-1533 to speak with a Texas NSA Arbitration Lawyer today.
Representative Texas NSA Arb / Surprise Billing Recoveries
$385,000 Recovery
A Houston-area orthopedic trauma group provided emergency surgical care following a major motor vehicle accident. The insurer’s initial payment was based on an in-network PPO rate rather than the reasonable out-of-network amount for the Houston market.
Our Texas NSA Arbitration Lawyers submitted a comprehensive ten-factor analysis to the arbitrator, demonstrating through FAIR Health geozip data, the provider’s training and fellowship credentials, and clinical complexity evidence that the insurer’s payment grossly undervalued the services. The arbitration award tripled the insurer’s original reimbursement.
$475,000 Recovery
A Dallas-Fort Worth spine surgeon performed a multi-level lumbar fusion for an out-of-network patient. The health plan reimbursed less than 25% of the billed amount, claiming its payment reflected the FAIR Health 50th percentile of allowed amounts.
Our team presented the complete ten-factor analysis—including the 80th percentile of billed charges, operative time evidence, patient acuity data, and national surgical benchmarks—to demonstrate the procedure warranted significantly higher reimbursement. The arbitrator selected the provider’s charge, awarding nearly the full billed amount plus interest.
$180,000 Recovery
A San Antonio ambulatory surgical center’s out-of-network claims were systematically underpaid across multiple procedures. We bundled the claims, built a compelling submission with FAIR Health benchmarks and Texas geozip comparators, and prevailed in the dispute.
$45,500 Recovery
An Austin emergency physician group’s billing was consistently undervalued by a major Texas insurer. We expedited the arbitration process, presenting FAIR Health data and provider credential evidence through the TDI portal to recover the full reasonable amount.
* Results vary depending on facts and legal circumstances.
SB 1264 State Arbitration vs. Federal NSA IDR — Which Governs Your Texas Claim?
Determining which dispute resolution framework applies to each claim is one of the most consequential decisions a **Texas NSA Arbitration Lawyer** makes. The wrong pathway means wasted time and potentially forfeited rights.
- SB 1264 state arbitration governs state-regulated plans: Claims involving PPOs, EPOs, and HMOs regulated by TDI, as well as ERS and TRS plans, go through the SB 1264 process. Providers file through the TDI IDR portal, participate in informal settlement teleconferences, and proceed to binding arbitration evaluated under the ten statutory factors. The 90-day filing window and 51-day arbitration timeline apply.
- Federal NSA IDR governs self-funded ERISA plans: Self-funded employer-sponsored plans—which cover the majority of commercially insured workers nationally—are beyond SB 1264’s reach. For these claims, the federal No Surprises Act’s IDR process applies, with its own timelines, QPA-based analysis, and certified IDR entity selection. Our attorneys handle the complete federal IDR lifecycle for Texas providers with ERISA plan claims.
- Key differences in the two systems: SB 1264 requires the arbitrator to evaluate ten specific statutory factors including FAIR Health data at both the 80th percentile of billed charges and 50th percentile of allowed amounts. The federal IDR process considers the QPA as a starting point alongside additional factors including provider training, market share, patient acuity, and prior contracted rates—but bars consideration of billed charges and Medicare or Medicaid rates. These differences can materially affect strategy and outcome.
- Federal IDR for certain services not covered by SB 1264: SB 1264 does not cover air ambulance services. These claims are governed exclusively by the federal NSA IDR process in Texas.
- Civil court remains an option: Under SB 1264, either party may file an action in civil court within 45 days after the arbitrator’s decision. This is an important backstop when arbitration produces an unjust result or when procedural issues arise.
Our Texas NSA Arbitration Lawyers evaluate every claim individually to determine the correct forum and the strategy most likely to produce maximum recovery.
Texas Providers We Represent in NSA Arbitration
Bhatt Law Group represents a full range of Texas out-of-network medical providers in surprise billing disputes. Our Texas NSA Arbitration Lawyers have particular experience with:
- Emergency medicine physicians and groups — Emergency physicians comprise the overwhelming majority of SB 1264 arbitration requests. We handle high-volume ER group arbitrations across every major Texas metropolitan area.
- Orthopedic and trauma surgeons — Complex trauma cases generate some of the highest-value arbitration disputes. We present operative complexity and FAIR Health 80th percentile data to justify full reimbursement.
- Anesthesiologists and CRNAs — Hospital-based anesthesia providers are among the most frequent targets of insurer underpayment in Texas. We challenge downcoding, bundling, and time-unit manipulation.
- Radiologists and diagnostic imaging providers — SB 1264 specifically covers out-of-network diagnostic imaging services. We demonstrate the true market value of radiology interpretations using FAIR Health geozip benchmarks.
- Pathologists and laboratory service providers — Laboratory services are covered under both SB 1264 (via mediation for facilities) and federal IDR. We pursue full reimbursement under the applicable framework.
- Spine and neurosurgeons — High-value surgical claims are prime targets for insurer underpayment. We present national surgical benchmarks, operative time data, and clinical complexity evidence.
- Surgical assistants — SB 1264 covers assistant surgeons and surgical assistants. We challenge the routine underpayment of these critical services.
- Hospitalists and intensivists — Inpatient care providers at in-network facilities frequently face surprise billing underpayments. We pursue arbitration through the appropriate channel for each claim.
- Neonatologists — Neonatal intensive care generates high-cost claims that insurers aggressively undervalue. We present clinical complexity and patient acuity evidence to justify full reimbursement.
NSA Arbitration Lawyers Representing Medical Providers Nationwide
While our Texas NSA Arbitration Lawyers bring specialized expertise to the unique SB 1264 framework and the intense Texas arbitration landscape, the federal No Surprises Act extends across all 50 states. Bhatt Law Group’s **NSA Arbitration Lawyers** represent out-of-network medical providers in every jurisdiction, applying our deep understanding of both the federal IDR process and each state’s individual surprise billing regulations to pursue maximum reimbursement on underpaid or denied claims.
Below is a summary of how we help providers in each state.
Northeast & Mid-Atlantic States
New Jersey
As a **New Jersey NSA Arbitration Lawyer**, Bhatt Law Group is headquartered in Jersey City with offices in Newark and Hackensack, providing unmatched expertise in New Jersey’s healthcare arbitration landscape. New Jersey enacted one of the nation’s most provider-favorable surprise billing frameworks—the Out-of-Network Consumer Protection, Transparency, Cost Containment, and Accountability Act—which applies to fully insured and opted-in self-funded plans. Historical data shows New Jersey’s median arbitration payment reaching 5.7 times the median in-network rate. For ERISA-regulated self-funded plans, the federal IDR process applies. Our attorneys have extensive track records in both New Jersey’s state arbitration system and the federal IDR process.
New York
As a **New York NSA Arbitration Lawyer**, Bhatt Law Group represents providers in one of the most established arbitration jurisdictions in the country. New York’s 2015 Emergency Medical Services and Surprise Bills Act created a baseball-style IDR process for fully insured plans where arbitrators consider FAIR Health’s 80th percentile charge benchmarks as the “usual and customary cost.” For ERISA plans, the federal IDR process applies. Our attorneys leverage New York’s historically provider-favorable arbitration environment to pursue maximum reimbursement.
Pennsylvania
As a **Pennsylvania NSA Arbitration Lawyer**, Bhatt Law Group assists providers in a state with limited state-level arbitration infrastructure. Pennsylvania’s Act 112 provides some emergency care protections, but the federal NSA IDR process serves as the primary mechanism for challenging insurer underpayments. Our attorneys build detailed submissions with Philadelphia and Pittsburgh market comparators to overcome QPA-based lowball payments.
Connecticut
As a **Connecticut NSA Arbitration Lawyer**, Bhatt Law Group represents providers under Connecticut’s strong surprise billing protections, which mandate reimbursement at the highest of the in-network amount, FAIR Health’s 80th percentile UCR benchmark, or the Medicare rate. For claims outside state jurisdiction, the federal IDR applies. Our attorneys leverage Connecticut’s favorable reimbursement structure for optimal outcomes.
Massachusetts
As a **Massachusetts NSA Arbitration Lawyer**, Bhatt Law Group helps providers in one of the most heavily regulated healthcare markets nationally. Massachusetts lacks a fully specified arbitration process, so the federal IDR system is the primary tool for challenging underpayments. Our attorneys prepare comprehensive submissions with Massachusetts regional data and clinical documentation.
RI, NH, VT, ME, DE, MD, DC, WV, VA
Bhatt Law Group also represents providers in **Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Delaware, Maryland, Washington D.C., West Virginia, and Virginia**. Each of these jurisdictions has varying levels of state-level surprise billing protections—from Maryland’s unique all-payer rate-setting system to states that rely primarily on the federal IDR process. Our attorneys tailor strategy to each state’s regulatory environment, presenting geographic cost data, provider expertise evidence, and market benchmarks to maximize recovery under the applicable framework.
Southeast States
Florida
As a **Florida NSA Arbitration Lawyer**, Bhatt Law Group represents providers in one of the highest-volume surprise billing states in the nation. Florida enacted its own surprise billing law in 2016 (HB 221 / §627.64194), which prohibits balance billing for emergency and certain non-emergency out-of-network services and establishes a “usual and customary” reimbursement standard. CMS recognized Florida’s pre-existing laws as a “specified state law,” meaning Florida’s voluntary arbitration process under §408.7057—administered by the AHCA through Maximus—governs most state-regulated insurance claims. For self-funded ERISA plans and certain small HMO claims below dollar thresholds, the federal IDR process applies. Florida also uniquely preserves providers’ right to pursue payment in state court. Our attorneys navigate Florida’s dual-track system to maximize recovery.
Georgia
As a **Georgia NSA Arbitration Lawyer**, Bhatt Law Group assists providers under Georgia’s Surprise Billing Consumer Protection Act, which mandates reimbursement at the median contracted amount among payors in 2017, CPI-adjusted, using FAIR Health data as the official reference. For federally regulated plans, the federal IDR applies. Our attorneys present provider expertise and geographic rate evidence to pursue reimbursement above the state benchmark.
Tennessee
As a **Tennessee NSA Arbitration Lawyer**, Bhatt Law Group represents providers in one of the most active federal IDR states. Federal data shows Tennessee has among the highest rates of arbitration decisions favoring providers nationally. Our attorneys help Tennessee providers capitalize on this environment with thorough IDR submissions backed by market data and clinical evidence.
NC, SC, AL, MS, LA, AR, KY
Bhatt Law Group also represents providers in **North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Kentucky**. These states largely rely on the federal IDR process for resolving surprise billing payment disputes. Kentucky has been the site of significant NSA litigation. Our attorneys prepare targeted IDR submissions for each state, presenting regional market benchmarks, clinical complexity evidence, and provider credentials to secure fair compensation.
Midwest States
Illinois
As an **Illinois NSA Arbitration Lawyer**, Bhatt Law Group represents providers in a state that enhanced its surprise billing framework following the federal NSA. Illinois revised its payment-dispute process to permit binding arbitration after a 30-day negotiation period, adopted the QPA definition for patient cost-sharing, and expanded protections to cover radiology and laboratory services. For federally regulated plans, the federal IDR applies. Our attorneys navigate both systems for optimal outcomes.
Ohio
As an **Ohio NSA Arbitration Lawyer**, Bhatt Law Group assists providers under Ohio’s HB 388, which mandates reimbursement for emergency and unanticipated out-of-network care at the greatest of the median in-network rate, the out-of-network plan rate, or the Medicare rate. Ohio also created its own arbitration process with fees split 70/30. For ERISA plans, the federal IDR applies. Our attorneys leverage Ohio’s favorable reimbursement floor.
Michigan
As a **Michigan NSA Arbitration Lawyer**, Bhatt Law Group represents providers under Michigan’s DIFS-administered surprise billing system, which includes carrier calculation review and binding arbitration with approved arbitrators. For federally regulated plans, the federal IDR applies. Our attorneys navigate both the state DIFS process and federal IDR.
IN, WI, MN, IA, MO, KS, NE, ND, SD
Bhatt Law Group also represents providers in **Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota**. These states primarily rely on the federal IDR process for surprise billing payment disputes, with some having partial state-level balance billing protections. Our attorneys prepare IDR submissions tailored to each state’s market conditions—from urban healthcare centers to rural communities with limited provider availability—presenting geographic cost evidence and clinical documentation to justify above-QPA reimbursement.
Southwest & Western States
California
As a **California NSA Arbitration Lawyer**, Bhatt Law Group represents providers in the state whose AB 72 (2016) established the blueprint for many federal surprise billing protections. California mandates payment at the greater of the payer’s local average contracted rate or 125% of Medicare, with providers able to appeal through the state’s Independent Dispute Resolution Process. AB 510 later aligned state law with the federal NSA. For ERISA plans, the federal IDR governs. Our attorneys navigate both California’s IDRP and the federal IDR system to challenge benchmark rates and maximize recovery.
New Mexico
As a **New Mexico NSA Arbitration Lawyer**, Bhatt Law Group assists providers under the Surprise Billing Protection Act, which sets reimbursement at the 60th percentile benchmark for allowed amounts from 2017 using FAIR Health data. For federally regulated plans, the federal IDR applies. Our attorneys present market comparator data and clinical justification to secure optimal recovery.
Arizona
As an **Arizona NSA Arbitration Lawyer**, Bhatt Law Group represents providers in one of the most active federal IDR jurisdictions, with significant volumes of emergency medicine, anesthesiology, and radiology disputes. Our attorneys prepare thorough IDR submissions with market-rate evidence and geographic cost analysis.
Washington
As a **Washington NSA Arbitration Lawyer**, Bhatt Law Group represents providers in a state that proactively expanded surprise billing protections to additional specialties including behavioral health and post-stabilization services. Washington maintains a specified state law with its own arbitration process. For federally regulated plans, the federal IDR applies. Our attorneys maximize recovery under either framework.
Oregon, Colorado
Bhatt Law Group also represents providers in **Oregon** and **Colorado**, both of which have comprehensive surprise billing protections. Oregon maintains a specified state law for payment disputes on state-regulated plans. Colorado has broadened protections to cover radiology, laboratory, and ground ambulance services—the last being unavailable under federal law. For federally regulated plans in both states, the federal IDR process applies. Our attorneys present compelling market data and geographic cost evidence in both state and federal proceedings.
NV, UT, OK, MT, WY, ID, HI, AK
Bhatt Law Group represents providers across **Nevada, Utah, Oklahoma, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Hawaii, and Alaska**. These states primarily rely on the federal IDR process for surprise billing disputes. Our attorneys account for each state’s unique market dynamics—from Alaska’s highest-in-the-nation healthcare costs and geographic isolation to Hawaii’s distinct island market to the rural healthcare challenges across the Mountain West—presenting geographic scarcity evidence, elevated cost-of-care factors, and provider expertise documentation to justify above-QPA reimbursement.
Contact Our Texas NSA Arbitration Lawyers Today
Whether you are an emergency physician in Houston, an orthopedic surgeon in Dallas, an anesthesiologist in San Antonio, a radiologist in Austin, or any other out-of-network provider practicing anywhere in Texas, Bhatt Law Group’s **Texas NSA Arbitration Lawyers** have the expertise and resources to recover the reimbursement you are owed.
- Mastery of SB 1264’s ten-factor framework: We engineer every submission around the ten statutory factors in Texas Insurance Code §1467.083 with current FAIR Health geozip datasets for every Texas market.
- Federal IDR expertise for ERISA plan claims: For self-funded plans outside SB 1264’s scope, we bring deep experience with federal IDR submission strategy, QPA rebuttal, and award enforcement.
- In-house team, never outsourced: Every Texas case is managed and advocated by our own attorneys for maximum quality and consistency.
- Aggressive post-award enforcement: We pursue non-compliant insurers through TDI complaints, regulatory channels, and civil court action within the 45-day filing window.
Stop letting Texas insurers keep money that belongs to your practice. Call us now at (888) 489-1533 for a confidential consultation. We represent Texas medical providers in all SB 1264 arbitrations, federal NSA IDR disputes, and surprise billing matters.
Your Personal Injury Team
When someone’s negligence causes you or a loved one serious injury, you deserve justice. Our team of personal injury lawyers at Bhatt Law Group is here to help you obtain the maximum available compensation for your medical costs, lost income, and other losses. We’re dedicated to fighting for the rights of injured people throughout New Jersey.
Your Criminal Defense Team
When you’ve been charged with a crime or a traffic offense in New Jersey, you need a dedicated team of lawyers who will fight your charge aggressively. At Bhatt Law Group, our criminal defense team is made up of skilled and experienced trial attorneys, including a former prosecutor, who will work hard to get you the best possible outcome for your case.
Your Family Law Team
Domestic matters can be incredibly complicated and emotional. Our team of New Jersey family lawyers at Bhatt Law Group are dedicated to protecting your best interests in family law matters, from divorce to custody disputes to DYFS investigations. Let us help you through this challenging time in your life.
Our attorneys have been recognized by some of the most prestigious legal organizations.
No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. To read the standard by which Thomson Reuters, AVVO, Lead Counsel, National Academy of Personal Injury Attorneys, and National Association of Distinguished Counsel provides accolades, please visit bhattlawgroup.com/accolades.
Client Stories
Renee
Bhatt Law Group Client
Renee was involved in a T-bone accident. Hear how Bhatt Law Group was able to go above and beyond to help Renee after her accident.
zyzntbc459
Drupaj
Drupaj was involved in a rear end car accident. Hear how Bhatt Law Group was able to help Drupaj and was by his side through the entire process.
t3zknkywdx
Jocelyn
Jocelyn was involved in a rear end car accident. Hear how Bhatt Law Group was able to help Jocelyn through her trauma.
5uo7d3632x
Tatyana
Tatyana was involved in a rear end car accident. Hear how Bhatt Law Group was able to help Tatyana and exceeded her expectations.
q9afbokeg0
Stephanie
Stephanie was involved in a rear end car accident. Hear how Bhatt Law Group was able to help Stephanie by exceeding her expectations.
1h0faqznae