The goals of price transparency under the Trump administration have been pretty straightforward. Ultimately, the aim is to help patients save money on healthcare. 

But reality has fallen short of the intent for several reasons. For one thing, Providers and Payors have complied with transparency requirements inconsistently, and even when pricing data is released, it’s presented in massive, highly technical files that are impractical for most people to interpret. Additionally, it’s nearly impossible for consumers to get an apples-to-apples comparison of the costs of care across medical offices and the coverage options available. As a result, the financial relief envisioned for patients has not yet materialized. 

In an ironic twist, reporting from KFF Health News suggests that the primary beneficiaries of price transparency have been Payors. KFF quotes Eric Hoag, an executive at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, who acknowledged, “We use the transparency data to make sure that we are competitive, or, you know, more than competitive against other health plans.” 

It seems that across the Payor industry, price transparency data has become a key tool for benchmarking and negotiation. Analysts at firms like McKinsey & Company and Forvis Mazars are tracking how Payors are using this data to compare reimbursement across markets, enabling them to improve contracts and reduce intelligence gaps. It’s been estimated that as many as 9 out of 10 Payors are leveraging transparency data today to gain an edge in negotiations. Meanwhile, a Dec. 30, 2025, MGMA Stat poll found that relatively few, as low as 18%, of medical groups use this data in negotiations. This contrast highlights a stark disconnect between the policy intent and how things are actually playing out in the market. 

In other words, while consumers have faced challenges in using this data and most Providers have yet to engage with it, sophisticated Payors are using it to strengthen their market position. Which begs the question, why are Payors realizing the benefits sooner than Providers? As we’ve discovered, it’s in part thanks to the role third-party vendors are playing in shaping how this data is used across the market.

Playing Both Sides

Many vendors in the Price Transparency space sell access to portals with uncurated versions of this data to both Payors and Providers. While this could be perceived as a fair and neutral approach, the reality is that Payors are the ones who come out on top. This is not simply because Payors have been more willing to engage, but rather because, when vendors play both sides, Providers face an inherent disadvantage for a number of reasons. 

1. Transparency Breakdown: The underlying intent of this legislation is transparency (it’s even in the bill's name). The aim was to empower patients and (indirectly) Providers to have more insight into the way healthcare is priced and paid for. Payors already had much of this information, but now they can access it in greater detail. By further empowering them with this intelligence, vendors weaponize this data in a way that goes against the spirit and intent of the law. Rather than creating balance, Payors stay a step ahead, continuing to set the terms of negotiation while Providers lag behind.
   
   
2. Conflicts of Interest: A vendor cannot fully advocate for a Provider while also advising Payors on how to optimize reimbursement strategies. At best, their incentives are split. At worst, they will help one side outmaneuver the other using the same intelligence. Providers need partners whose success is linked to their own, and who have only their best interests in mind.
   
   
3. Communication Leaks (Even Unintentional Ones): Even if there are strict rules of engagement about data sharing, it’s inevitable for insights to bleed across clients. Over time, vendors develop an understanding of how their clients think and behave under pressure. They gain an awareness of negotiation tactics. Inevitably, what a team learns about one client will seep into what it communicates to another.

Price Transparency was intended to level the playing field between Payors and Providers so they could engage in informed discussions about reimbursement, leading to more transparent and just pricing of healthcare services. When vendors play both sides, they only strengthen the Payor’s position, reinforcing, if not furthering, the advantage already at play. 

Putting Transparency Data to Work for Providers

This is why After Transparency has chosen a different approach, and we’ve taken a firm stance against working with Payors. We see how this data is poised to either set Providers back further or put them on a path to financial stability, and we choose the side that empowers their financial stability.

For the first time, Providers can access a clear view of the pricing landscape that Payors have used for years to their advantage. Providers must seize this moment, in partnership with a vendor who’s on their side alone, so they can finally have a fair chance in negotiations. 

As Blake Madden of Hospitalogy puts it, “Payor Price Transparency Data is very useful in helping your hospital understand what Payors know about YOUR organization.”  He’s right. Payors already have so much market insight at their disposal. Price Transparency Data is a huge opportunity for Providers to level set in a way that has yet to be fully realized.

With After Transparency, Providers can access what they need to be successful in negotiations, new market analysis, and strategic planning evaluations. And they can trust they’re working with a partner free of any conflicts of interest. As Pete Brumm, Founder of After Transparency, explains, “We’re here to equip Providers with the necessary analytic support that enables strategic growth in a way that’s finally fair and equitable.”

We’re putting defensible analysis within reach of Providers and only Providers. If you’re a Provider interested in learning more, then let’s talk. We’re here to help you win.