🔄 FAIR Health Alternative

Real Negotiated Rates,
Not Billed-Charge Estimates

FAIR Health benchmarks are derived from billed charges — not contracted rates. PayerBenchmark indexes actual CMS MRF negotiated rates from all 5 major payers, queryable via REST API in under 50ms.

PayerBenchmark vs. FAIR Health

Feature PayerBenchmark FAIR Health
Data Source ✔ Actual CMS MRF negotiated rates ✗ Billed-charge estimates (not contracted rates)
REST API Access ✔ Full REST API, OpenAPI 3.1 spec ~ Limited API; primarily reports & downloads
Query Latency ✔ <50ms p99 ✗ Report-based; no real-time queries
Payer-Specific Rates ✔ Cigna, Aetna, UHC, BCBS, Humana ✗ Aggregated estimates, not payer-specific
Cross-Payer Benchmarks ✔ p10–p90 percentiles via API ~ Percentiles available but billed-charge based
OON Allowed Amounts ✔ Real OON payment data from MRFs ~ Billed-charge based OON estimates
Filter by NPI / CPT ✔ NPI, CPT, payer, network, date range ✗ Pre-built reports; no per-NPI filtering
Monthly Data Refresh ✔ Zero-downtime monthly CMS refresh ~ Periodic updates, not monthly MRF-aligned
Programmatic Integration ✔ REST API + SDKs + bulk export ✗ Primarily UI-based reports and CSV downloads
Pricing Transparency ✔ Public usage-based tiers ~ Subscription licensing, custom pricing

Actual Rates vs. Billed-Charge Estimates

📋

FAIR Health Uses Billed Charges

FAIR Health benchmarks are derived from what providers billed — not what payers actually paid. Billed charges can be 3–10x higher than negotiated rates. This matters enormously for cost estimation, dispute resolution, and contract modeling.

✅

PayerBenchmark Uses Actual Contracted Rates

Since July 2022, every major commercial payer publishes actual negotiated rates under the CMS Transparency in Coverage rule. PayerBenchmark indexes all of them — 2B+ real contracted rate rows, not estimates derived from billed charges.

⚡

Real-Time API vs. Static Reports

FAIR Health publishes pre-built reports and CSV downloads. PayerBenchmark exposes a real-time REST API — query any CPT code, any NPI, any payer, any network, and get results in under 50ms. No waiting for a report to generate.

🏥

Payer-Specific Rate Data

FAIR Health aggregates across payers. PayerBenchmark breaks rates out by payer and network — so you can see exactly what Cigna pays vs. Aetna vs. UHC for the same CPT code at the same provider. Critical for contract negotiation.

📊

Benchmarks Built on Real Negotiated Rates

The /v1/benchmarks endpoint computes p10–p90 percentiles from actual payer-contracted rates across all 5 major payers — not from billed charges. This is a fundamentally more accurate benchmark for cost transparency and dispute resolution.

🔗

Built for Developers

REST API with OpenAPI 3.1 spec, Python/TypeScript/.NET SDKs, cursor-based bulk export, and usage-based pricing. FAIR Health was designed for analysts consuming pre-built reports — PayerBenchmark was designed for engineering teams building on top of the data.

Switch from FAIR Health to Real MRF Data

1

Identify your FAIR Health use cases

Document which benchmarks you're pulling from FAIR Health today — OON estimates, in-network percentiles, geographic breakdowns. These map directly to PayerBenchmark's API endpoints.

2

Map to PayerBenchmark endpoints

In-network rate benchmarks → /v1/benchmarks. OON allowed amounts → /v1/oon/rates. Payer-specific rates → /v1/rates?payer=<payer>. Geographic filters are supported via state and CBSA parameters.

3

Run a comparison on a sample CPT set

Pull benchmarks for your top 20–50 CPT codes from both sources. You'll typically find PayerBenchmark's negotiated-rate percentiles are 40–70% lower than FAIR Health's billed-charge estimates — which is the actual market reality.

4

Integrate and automate

Replace manual FAIR Health report downloads with API calls. Set up a monthly refresh job aligned with CMS MRF publication cycles. Your benchmarks will now stay current automatically.

Get Benchmarks Based on Real Rates

Stop benchmarking against billed-charge estimates. PayerBenchmark gives you actual contracted rates — the numbers payers and providers actually agreed to — via a sub-50ms REST API.