HB0179 creates a Hospital Price Transparency Act that requires every licensed hospital in Wyoming to post comprehensive price information on its public website, maintain a consumer-facing list of at least 300 'shoppable' services, and submit annual 340B program data to the Department of Health. The measure directs the department to adopt formatting rules, monitor compliance, require corrective action plans, and impose tiered civil penalties for violations.
The bill also prohibits hospitals from initiating or pursuing collection actions for services provided on dates when the hospital was in material violation; it authorizes judicial remedies including refunds and penalties to patients and makes compliance part of licensing considerations. For compliance officers and hospital executives, the bill creates new data, reporting, and website obligations plus an enforcement regime that can affect revenue collection and licensing status.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires hospitals to publish a machine-readable file of all 'standard charges' (gross charge, payor‑specific negotiated rates, de‑identified min/max negotiated rates and discounted cash prices) and a searchable, human-readable list of at least 300 shoppable services (including the CMS list of 70 where applicable). It also mandates confidential annual 340B program reporting to the Department of Health, with the department publishing aggregated, non‑identifiable summaries.
Who It Affects
All Wyoming hospitals licensed under title 35, including critical access hospitals and offsite outpatient locations affiliated with a hospital; 340B covered facilities must submit additional drug pricing and charity care data; payors, contract pharmacies and billing vendors will need to support payor‑specific displays and data feeds.
Why It Matters
The bill forces public disclosure of negotiated rates and 340B program usage at a facility level, creating new compliance burdens and potential commercial disclosure risks for hospitals while giving patients, researchers and regulators access to standardized pricing data for analysis and enforcement.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB0179 builds a two-track transparency regime. First, it directs every licensed hospital to post a machine-readable file on its homepage containing 'standard charges' for every facility item and service.
Those standard charges include gross charges, discounted cash prices, the de‑identified minimum and maximum negotiated charges, and payor‑specific negotiated charges tied to named third‑party payors and plans. The department must prescribe a template and formatting rules—substantially similar to CMS conventions when useful—and hospitals must update the file at least annually and mark the update date.
Second, hospitals must maintain a consumer-friendly, searchable list of at least 300 shoppable services. The list must include the 70 CMS‑specified shoppable services where applicable, identify the specific facility location where each price applies, be searchable by service name, billing code and payor, and be formatted so internet search engines can index it.
For hospitals operating multiple locations under one license, the lists must clearly map prices to locations.The bill places special reporting duties on 340B covered facilities. Those entities must report annually to the Department of Health specific 340B metrics (acquisition cost, payments received, claim counts, contract pharmacy payments, use of savings for charity care and operating/cost figures), with the raw submissions kept confidential.
The department will aggregate and publish a non‑identifying statewide report and may levy a $1,000-per-day penalty against any 340B covered facility that misses the reporting deadline.Enforcement is administrative and civil. The department monitors compliance through complaints, audits of hospital websites and required submission checks.
If it finds a material violation, it issues a notice, requires a corrective action plan within 30 days and monitors implementation; failure to respond or to implement triggers daily civil penalties that vary by hospital type (tiered lower amounts for critical access hospitals, higher flat rates for others). The department will also publish a running public list of violators, penalties and notices and may consider compliance when renewing licenses.
Separately, the statute prohibits hospitals from pursuing collection actions for debts tied to care delivered on dates when the hospital was in material violation, and it creates judicial remedies (refunds, penalty payments to patients and removal of adverse credit reporting) where courts find violations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Hospitals must post a machine‑readable price file on their homepage that lists gross charges, payor‑specific negotiated rates (identified by payor and plan), de‑identified min/max negotiated charges and discounted cash prices for every facility item or service.
Each hospital must publish a consumer‑facing, searchable list of at least 300 shoppable services, include the CMS 70 when applicable, and map prices to each physical location the hospital operates.
340B covered facilities must submit confidential annual reports (by April 1 for the prior calendar year) covering acquisition costs, payments, claim counts, contract pharmacy payments, and use of 340B savings; the department will aggregate and publish non‑identifying summaries.
The Department of Health may impose daily civil penalties for noncompliance (tiered lower rates for critical access hospitals; $1,000/day standard) and will publish a public list of violators and enforcement actions updated every 30 days.
If a court finds a hospital materially violated the act for care on a given date, the hospital must refund payors, pay patients an amount equal to the debt, dismiss collection suits with prejudice, pay patient attorney fees and remove adverse credit reports.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title and statutory purpose
Labels the statute the 'Hospital Price Transparency Act' and ties its purpose to requiring price disclosure, providing civil penalties, and prohibiting certain debt collection where hospitals are noncompliant. This frames the law as both transparency and consumer‑protection oriented, which matters when the department adopts implementing rules.
Definitions tailoring scope and coverage
Sets the operational definitions hospitals must use: what counts as a 'facility item or service,' 'standard charge,' 'shoppable service,' and the criteria for 'financially' or 'medically' indigent patients. The definitions broaden coverage to include offsite outpatient facilities under a hospital license and explicitly require income‑indexed charity care criteria—practical detail that affects which encounters and locations require pricing.
Web posting and content requirements for price files
Mandates that hospitals post both a machine‑readable full price file and a human‑readable list of shoppable services on their website homepages, free and without login or personal data entry. The department prescribes a template (considering CMS formats) and requires the files to be searchable and indexable by search engines. Hospitals must clearly date updates and maintain location‑specific price mapping when operating multiple sites—practical mechanics that drive IT, billing and website workstreams.
Annual 340B program reporting by covered facilities
Requires 340B covered facilities to report detailed drug program metrics annually: acquisition costs, payments received, contract pharmacy payments, claim volumes, how savings were used (charity care/community benefits), and facility operating and charity care costs. The raw submissions are confidential; the department must aggregate and publish non‑identifying statewide summaries. The bill ties nonreporting to a $1,000/day civil penalty after November 15.
Shoppable services list and selection criteria
Directs hospitals to publish at least 300 shoppable services and to prioritize commonly billed services; if a hospital cannot provide the full CMS list of 70, it must show the services it does provide and flag those it doesn't. The list must be searchable by service description, billing code and third‑party payor, increasing the expectations for integration between the hospital's charge master, billing systems and web interface.
Department reporting intake and monitoring powers
Requires hospitals to submit updated lists to the department when they update prices and authorizes the department to audit websites, review complaints and evaluate other agency analyses for compliance. The department must use a prescribed submission format and can use these reviews as part of licensing decisions, linking price transparency to the broader regulatory regime.
Material violations, corrective plans and civil penalties
Defines 'material violation' (failure to meet posting requirements) and sets a remedial sequence: notice, 30‑day corrective action plan, department review and monitoring. Failure to respond or comply triggers civil penalties that vary: critical access hospitals face escalating per‑day penalties by offense level ($100, then $500, then $1,000/day), while other hospitals face $1,000/day. The department must also publish a public list of violations and enforcement actions every 30 days.
Prohibition on collection actions for care rendered during violations
Prohibits hospitals from referring debts to collectors, suing, enforcing arbitration or reporting to credit agencies for debts tied to care rendered on dates the hospital was in material violation. It creates a private right to litigate and mandates remedies if a court finds a violation, including refunds to payors, payment to patients equal to the debt, dismissal of suits with prejudice, attorney fees and credit remediation. The provision pauses collection while judicial review is pending, creating a strong consumer protection tied to compliance status.
Rulemaking, licensing consequences and timing
Adds noncompliance with the new article to the list of grounds the Division can consider when placing license conditions or revoking a facility's license, and directs the Department of Health to promulgate implementing rules. The main provisions take effect July 1, 2026, with rulemaking and certain implementation steps effective immediately, so hospitals and vendors would have a compressed window for technical changes if the law were enacted.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Uninsured and low‑income patients — The collection prohibition and charity care reporting strengthen protections for patients who may otherwise face aggressive debt collection for care provided while hospitals failed to disclose prices.
- Healthcare researchers and policy analysts — Standardized, machine‑readable price files and the department's aggregated 340B summaries provide new datasets for price, utilization and 340B impact analysis.
- State regulators and legislators — The Department of Health gains enforcement tools, structured reporting and a public violation registry that support oversight and future policy adjustments.
- Commercial payors and employers — Public disclosure of payor‑specific negotiated rates and de‑identified min/max negotiated charges can improve benchmarking and inform contract negotiations and benefit design.
Who Bears the Cost
- Hospitals (including critical access hospitals) — Must invest in systems to export charge master data to a prescribed template, create searchable public interfaces, map prices by location and produce annual 340B reports; they also face daily civil penalties for noncompliance.
- Billing vendors and IT contractors — Need to build or reconfigure feeds and web‑facing tools to produce machine‑readable files, searchable shoppable lists and payor‑specific displays that match the department's template.
- Contract pharmacies and third‑party administrators — May need to supply data to 340B covered facilities or face contractual frictions as facilities attempt to compile total payments and contract pharmacy expenses for confidential reporting.
- Department of Health — Will require staffing, technical capacity and rulemaking resources to design templates, receive and audit submissions, maintain the public violator list and manage enforcement workflows.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate objectives against one another: the public interest in transparent, comparable hospital pricing and robust patient protections, versus hospitals’ contractual confidentiality interests, operational capacity and financial stability—especially for small or rural providers. The statute increases disclosure and consumer protection but risks imposing disclosure obligations and enforcement costs that could strain providers and provoke contractual and legal conflict without careful implementation safeguards.
Several practical and legal tensions stand out. First, the requirement to publish payor‑specific negotiated charges by named payor and plan collides with common contractual confidentiality clauses between hospitals and insurers; providers may face lawsuits or contractual claims if disclosure is interpreted as breaching those agreements, and the bill does not create an express statutory safe harbor for disclosures that contract language would otherwise restrict.
Second, the department’s promise to keep raw 340B submissions confidential but to publish aggregated summaries raises technical questions: small sample sizes or facility‑level heterogeneity can allow reverse engineering of sensitive facility economics unless the aggregation rules are carefully designed.
Operationally, smaller and rural hospitals face a high compliance bar. Producing machine‑readable price files that map payor rates, location‑specific charges and the CMS naming convention requires integration across charge master, billing and web teams.
The escalating per‑day penalties create financial risk if systems or vendors fail to deliver on time. Finally, the collection‑prohibition mechanism introduces litigation timing complexity: patients can trigger court review of whether a hospital was in material violation for a specific date; while the statute pauses collection during litigation, hospitals face delayed revenue realization and potential retroactive refunds if a court finds a violation—an outcome that could be especially disruptive to hospitals with thin margins.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.