Which statement about legal protection from out-of-network medical bills is incorrect?

The statement indicating that a patient-plaintiff is likely to prevail in a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim against the hospital is inaccurate, because establishing a breach of fiduciary duty in a legal context requires demonstrating that a special relationship exists where the hospital has a duty to act in the best interests of the patient. While hospitals and patients interact frequently, this relationship does not inherently contain the fiduciary elements often required for such a claim. Courts generally view hospitals as service providers rather than fiduciaries in this context, making it challenging for patients to succeed on such grounds.

In contrast, the other statements reflect accurate aspects of legal protections surrounding out-of-network medical bills. States do vary significantly in how they address balance billing protection, with very few states extending broad protections. Additionally, courts do have the authority to invalidate contracts they believe are unconscionable, which often relates to agreements that are overly one-sided or unjust. Finally, addressing involuntary balance billing at the state level allows for legislation that may reflect the preferences and needs of the citizens in that state, creating a more tailored approach to healthcare policy which can differ significantly across regions.