Price transparency in healthcare comes from two different directions, and they don't always answer the same question. Hospitals publish under the CMS Hospital Price Transparency Rule. Payers publish under Transparency in Coverage (TiC). Both exist because of the same broader push toward visible pricing, but the reporting requirements, the structure of the files, and the analyses they support are different enough that treating them interchangeably will get you the wrong answer.
Reporting Requirements:
Hospital files come from the CMS rule that took effect in January 2021 and tightened in 2024. Every hospital has to publish a machine-readable file with gross charges, payer-specific negotiated rates, de-identified minimum and maximum negotiated rates, and a discounted cash price, all at the level of individual billing codes within that facility. The 2024 update pushed hospitals toward a standardized CMS template, but enforcement is still uneven, financial penalties only bite when CMS actually audits, and file quality varies enormously by health system. Some hospitals publish clean, complete files. Others publish technically compliant files that are functionally unusable.
Payer files come from a different rule entirely; TiC sits under the Affordable Care Act and is jointly enforced by CMS, Treasury, and the Department of Labor. Group health plans and issuers have to publish in-network negotiated rate files and out-of-network allowed amount files, updated monthly, in a standardized JSON schema. The schema is more consistent than hospital files, but the files themselves are enormous, often spanning every provider a plan contracts with across every market it operates in, which makes them more reliable to parse but harder to work with at scale.
Trek offers you access to both.
When to Use Each:
Hospital files are the right source when the question is about a specific facility or system. If you're sizing out a site-of-service strategy, evaluating a single hospital's negotiated rate for a given CPT code across its top payers, or doing diligence on a particular health system's contract terms, the hospital MRF gets you there directly because it's anchored to that one entity. It's also the only place to find true cash/self-pay pricing, since payer files don't capture uninsured rates.
Payer files are the right source when the question is about a market rather than a single hospital. If you're comparing how a payer prices the same procedure across providers in a region, building a Payer Generosity Index across multiple plans, or trying to understand rate variation tied to a specific employer group's plan, TiC data is structured for that because it's organized by plan and provider network rather than by single facility. It's also the better source for understanding how negotiated rates move with network breadth, since the file inherently contains every provider the plan touches.
In practice, the strongest analyses pull both. Hospital files give you ground truth at the facility level; payer files give you the market context around that facility. Ghost rate analysis is a good example: a negotiated rate that shows up in a payer's TiC file but never appears in the corresponding hospital file (or vice versa) is often the first signal that something's off in how the two sides are reporting the same contract. Neither file alone tells you that. You need the mismatch.
The rule of thumb: if the question starts with "this hospital," start with the hospital file. If it starts with "this payer" or "this market," start with TiC. If the question is about discrepancy between the two, you need both from the start.
