Decoding DME Pricing: Analyzing CPAP Reimbursements

Durable Medical Equipment (DME) prices in the U.S. healthcare system can vary astonishingly, even for the exact same item. A prime example is the CPAP device (Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, HCPCS E0601), a common DME used to treat sleep apnea. Depending on the payer and context, the reimbursed price of a CPAP can swing from well under $200 to several thousand dollars. This post takes a data-driven look at why such variability exists, combining national research with a deep dive into Minnesota’s payer data. We’ll explore national pricing trends (including Medicare vs. private payer practices), explain key factors behind DME price variation (from billing class to place-of-service and contracts), and share insights from new price transparency data. Finally, we’ll highlight how health systems, payers, DME suppliers, and consultants can leverage this information to make smarter decisions.

National Trends in CPAP/DME Reimbursement

Medicare’s Influence – Fee Schedules to Competitive Bidding: Historically, Medicare has been a major rate-setter for DME. For many years, Medicare paid for DME based on a fee schedule derived from 1980s supplier charges, often resulting in higher payments than some private insurers. For example, prior to 2011, Medicare’s allowable for a CPAP was around $100+ per month on a 13-month rental (totaling roughly $1,300). Recognizing these rates were outdated, Congress mandated the Competitive Bidding Program (CBP). Under competitive bidding, Medicare started using market-driven bids in select areas to set DME prices. The impact was dramatic: by 2016 Medicare’s payment rate for a CPAP rental had dropped by about 60% (from ~$102 down to ~$40 per month in urban areas). In other words, Medicare’s total 13-month payment for a CPAP fell from roughly $1,300 to about $500–$600 in competitive-bid regions. These cuts saved billions for Medicare and patients, albeit with some controversy among suppliers.

Private Payers – Following, Flouting, or Forging Their Own Path: Private insurers have reacted to Medicare’s changes in different ways. Some health plans index their DME reimbursement to Medicare’s fee schedule or competitive bidding rates (e.g. paying a percentage of Medicare’s rate), thereby reaping similar savings. Others negotiate their own contracts with DME vendors or providers, which can result in higher or lower rates than Medicare’s. In fact, competitive bidding flipped the script in some cases – whereas Medicare used to pay more than private plans on many items, now Medicare’s post-bidding prices for items like CPAP are often lower than what certain private insurers pay. For instance, Medicare’s average allowable for a CPAP (~$500–$600 total) is now well below what some commercial plans reimburse (as we’ll see in the Minnesota data, one major private payer’s average was about $780). On the other end, at least one national insurer in Minnesota averaged only ~$330 for a CPAP, underscoring the wide variation among payers.

Reimbursement Practices – Rental vs. Purchase: A key difference in CPAP coverage is whether the payer treats it as a monthly rental (usually with rent-to-own after a set period, as Medicare does) or allows outright purchase. Medicare and many insurers require an initial rental period (often 10–13 months) to ensure the patient is using the device, after which the device is owned. Some private plans mirror this approach, while others may permit an upfront purchase at a negotiated price (or have a rent-to-own model with a defined lump-sum). These policy differences can affect cash flow and total payout. For example, a plan that pays $50/month for 12 months ends up around $600, whereas another might simply pay a one-time $600 allowed amount. Importantly, billing codes and modifiers distinguish these scenarios: E0601 with an “RR” modifier denotes a rental month, while E0601 with “NU” indicates a purchase of new equipment. In this article, whenever we refer to “price of a CPAP,” we’re focusing on the allowed amount to acquire the device (for consistency, using purchase-equivalent pricing).

Why DME Prices Vary: Billing Class, Place of Service, and Contracts

Several structural factors drive the inconsistency in DME reimbursements:

• Billing Class (Professional vs. Institutional): DME can be billed on a professional claim (e.g. by an independent DME supplier or clinic) or on an institutional claim (e.g. by a hospital outpatient department). The billing class can lead to different negotiated terms. Generally, professional DME claims use fee schedule-type rates. In contrast, if a hospital provides the DME (for example, at discharge), the claim might be processed under facility billing rules, sometimes resulting in higher payments. Our analysis found evidence of this: CPAPs billed through hospital systems had allowed amounts 2–3× higher on average than those billed by DME suppliers. This occurs because hospital contracts often reimburse a percentage of charges or have higher overhead – a CPAP provided by a hospital may include facility markups that a standalone DME supplier wouldn’t charge.
  
  
• Place of Service (POS) Codes: Where the patient receives the service or item also matters. Payers distinguish home use vs. facility use via POS codes. Commonly, CPAPs are delivered for home use (POS 12) or an office/clinic (POS 11). If provided during an inpatient stay or at a hospital outpatient clinic (POS 21 or 22), it might fall under different payment rules. These nuances affect allowed amounts. In the transparency data, many negotiated rates were tagged with dozens of applicable POS codes, reflecting that the same rate could apply in various settings – but not always. If a payer carves out DME benefits separately (e.g., only certain POS allowed for certain rates), discrepancies can arise. The exact same CPAP code can be paid differently if it’s an at-home DME purchase versus part of a hospital service.
  
  
• Payer Contract Dynamics: Perhaps the biggest factor is simply how each payer negotiates with providers and DME vendors. DME pricing is often the product of contractual agreements – some payers have exclusive deals with large national DME companies (yielding volume-based discounts), while others might let many providers supply DME and pay each according to their own charge structure or a default fee schedule. For example, Payer A might contract a flat $500 for any CPAP device with vendor X, whereas Payer B agrees to pay 120% of Medicare’s rate to any in-network DME supplier, and Payer C might reimburse hospital-affiliated providers differently from independent suppliers. These contract quirks lead to divergent price points. Legacy contracts also play a role: a payer that hasn’t updated its DME fees in years might still be paying near 2010-era rates, whereas another that aggressively renegotiated post-2018 could be paying much less. Competitive dynamics matter too – in markets where one health plan dominates, it might negotiate lower rates, whereas smaller or regionally isolated plans might accept higher prices from providers (especially if certain health systems are “must-have” in network).
  
  
• Billing Modifiers (New vs. Used, etc.): DME claims use modifiers like NU (new equipment), RR (rental), or UE (used equipment) which can affect price. In practice, most insurance-covered CPAPs are new devices, but if a “used” option were allowed, it could be cheaper. There are also modifiers for when a device is patient-owned versus rented, etc. In our dataset we filtered specifically for negotiated rates where the CPAP was new (modifier NU) and in-network. It’s worth noting that all these negotiated rates assume the patient met coverage criteria (e.g. documented sleep study and trial) – otherwise the device wouldn’t be covered at all. While coverage criteria are beyond our scope here, they’re another source of variation (if one payer denies coverage more often, their average paid might skew lower simply by utilization, not price).
  
  

In summary, DME pricing isn’t a single number because context is king. The price depends on who’s billing (hospital vs. supplier), where it’s billed (home vs. facility), and the specific deal that provider or supplier struck with the insurer. These factors can compound. For instance, a hospital in-network with generous percent-of-charge terms can result in a CPAP allowed amount many times higher than the fixed fee that an independent DME company gets under another contract. The upcoming case study of Minnesota will illustrate just how extreme these differences can be.

Transparency in Coverage: A New Window into Prices

For decades, negotiated rates between insurers and providers were cloaked in secrecy, considered proprietary information. That changed recently with the Transparency in Coverage (TiC) rule, a federal mandate taking effect July 1, 2022. This rule “requires payers to publish the reimbursement rates they have with health care providers” for all covered items and services, DME included. In practice, insurers now post massive machine-readable files (MRFs) detailing negotiated prices for every procedure, drug, and supply code, by plan and provider. The data is granular down to the clinic or hospital level.

For the first time, researchers and stakeholders can directly see the prices that were once hidden. However, this data comes in a raw and unwieldy form. This data is often derived from hundreds of millions of records in JSON or CSV format per insurer. Making sense of it requires substantial data wrangling (the files are not user-friendly spreadsheets but nested data structures encoding fee schedules, percent-of-charge formulas, and more). Price transparency data can be complex to work with, but for those who know how to navigate it, it offers a uniquely detailed look at negotiated rates across payers, providers, and services. These are insights that traditional claims data can’t provide and it’s a powerful resource for uncovering real pricing dynamics.

Findings from the Data: Early analyses of price transparency data show huge variations in prices across the country and even within regions. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) itself anticipated this: when hospitals were required to post prices (a related rule effective in 2021), it often revealed that one insurer might pay double or triple what another paid the same hospital for a procedure. The TiC data extends this visibility to all providers and all services. For DME like CPAPs, which historically had more uniform pricing through Medicare, the transparency data highlights that private payer contracts are all over the map. These files also expose cases where negotiated rates are extremely high or low – sometimes raising questions (e.g. is an extremely high value a quirk of a contract formula, or an error in the data?). Cleaning and interpreting the data properly is a challenge, but it’s now possible to answer very specific questions, like “What does each insurer pay on average for a CPAP in Minnesota?”

Competitive Bidding Meets Transparency: It’s interesting to note that while CMS’s Competitive Bidding Program gave Medicare hard data points on market prices, the Transparency in Coverage rule does something analogous for the private sector. It lays bare the actual negotiated prices that were previously known only internally. This transparency could eventually influence negotiations: payers and providers can benchmark against competitors. In the next section, we leverage transparency data from Minnesota to illustrate exactly this kind of comparison.

(Technical note: The Minnesota analysis below is based on a dataset filtered from over 273 million negotiated rate records, processed using Gigasheet. We extracted all in-network negotiated rates for code E0601 (CPAP device) in Minnesota, focusing on key payers. This included tens of thousands of data points across multiple insurer files. We then computed statistics like averages and ranges by payer. All prices refer to the allowed amount for the CPAP device itself, not including masks or supplies.)

Analysis: CPAP Prices by Payer (Aetna, Blue Cross, Medica, UHC, HealthPartners) in Minnesota

To ground this discussion, let’s examine real negotiated prices for CPAP devices in Minnesota. We looked at several major payers in Minnesota and their contracted rates for HCPCS E0601 (CPAP). The payers include national players (Aetna, UnitedHealthcare), regional Blue plans (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota and of North Dakota), and local systems (Medica and HealthPartners). All rates analyzed are for in-network providers within Minnesota, for the purchase of a new CPAP device (negotiated rate with “NU” modifier).

What did we find? In short, staggering variability. Here’s a summary of each payer’s average negotiated price for a CPAP in Minnesota:

‍

As shown above, the averages ranged from about $331 (Aetna) on the low end to $783 (HealthPartners) on the high end. Several others fell in between – UnitedHealthcare and Medica around $534–$535, Blue Cross MN around $630, and Blue Cross ND around $778. These are significant differences: HealthPartners’ average CPAP payment is roughly 2.4× Aetna’s. Even two Blue Cross plans (Minnesota vs. North Dakota) differed by ~23%, despite presumably similar equipment needs.

Why such differences? The factors discussed earlier offer some clues:

• Link to Medicare:
  Aetna’s very low average reimbursement of approximately $331 suggests that it may be aligning CPAP payments closely with Medicare’s post-competitive bidding rates, potentially even undercutting Medicare’s total of around $500. This could mean Aetna has secured deep discounts through contracts with national DME vendors or limits reimbursement to rental rates equivalent to Medicare’s pricing. On the other end of the spectrum, HealthPartners shows a much higher average at $783. As an integrated payer-provider system in Minnesota, HealthPartners stood out in our data as the only entity with institutional claims for CPAP devices. Those institutional claims, such as those filed by hospitals, averaged more than $2,000. That figure had a significant impact on their overall average. Looking specifically at professional claims, such as those from DME suppliers, the average was closer to $759, which is still the highest among the payers reviewed. This pattern suggests that HealthPartners does not strictly adhere to Medicare’s fee schedule and may allow higher rates, particularly when CPAPs are delivered through hospital contracts.
  ‍
• Network and Provider Mix:
  Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota reported only 88 negotiated entries for CPAP, significantly fewer than other payers. This could reflect a smaller DME network or differences in how their data is reported. Their average rate, around $630, fell in the middle of the spectrum, which may indicate a reimbursement schedule slightly above Medicare’s. In contrast, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota paid Minnesota providers an average of $778. One possible explanation is that BCBS ND covers members in rural border areas where providers command higher fees due to limited access. Alternatively, it may reflect a less aggressive negotiation strategy for DME rates. Medica and UnitedHealthcare of the Midwest showed nearly identical pricing, each with an average of $535. Notably, both payers reported the same minimum and maximum rates, with a low of $95 and a high of $2,864. This suggests the two may share a vendor arrangement or use a common network for certain services. In fact, Medica often leases network infrastructure from UHC, as seen in products like Medica Choice. The shared outlier values support that possibility. Overall, both Medica and UHC appear to be pricing CPAPs near Medicare levels, likely due to competitive bidding or strict contract benchmarking.
  ‍
• Extremes and Outliers:
  The transparency data revealed substantial outliers on both ends of the pricing range. The lowest negotiated rate for a CPAP device was approximately $95 and came from an independent clinic in Greater Minnesota. This may represent a scenario where the clinic has a simplified DME fee schedule, possibly passing the device through at near-cost. At the opposite extreme, we found a maximum rate of $4,229 paid by HealthPartners to a major health system, Fairview Health Services. That single claim reflects a nearly 45-fold difference compared to the lowest price. In cases like these, when a CPAP is provided through a hospital in-network, the allowed amount can rise dramatically. This likely results from charge-based reimbursement structures. For example, if the hospital sets a list price of $5,000 and the contract pays 85 percent of charges, the insurer may approve an amount around $4,250. Although these high-priced claims were rare with fewer than 300 out of more than 30,000 total. They highlight how the provider type and contract terms can significantly influence payment amounts. Most independent DME suppliers, in contrast, had prices clustered in a much narrower band, typically a few hundred dollars.
  ‍
• Regional Patterns:
  ‍Geography also played a role in pricing variation. Many of the lowest allowed amounts, often under $200, were linked to providers in smaller towns and rural areas. This could be due to a flat statewide fee schedule that local clinics are more likely to accept without negotiation. The highest prices, by contrast, were concentrated in the Twin Cities metro area. There, large hospitals and health systems often delivered the equipment, which was associated with significantly higher reimbursement levels. A rural patient obtaining a CPAP from a local DME supplier might generate a claim for $150, while an urban patient receiving the same device from a hospital might result in a $4,000 claim. The device itself is likely identical—a ResMed or Philips unit—but the delivery setting and contractual terms lead to this massive difference. From the patient’s perspective, the cost impact may not be obvious. If both providers are in-network, the patient might pay a similar out-of-pocket amount such as a fixed co-pay. However, at the system level, this variation introduces meaningful inefficiencies and cost differences that are not justified by the underlying product.

Implications: For Minnesota payers and providers, this analysis reveals clear opportunities and threats. A health system like Fairview, seeing that HealthPartners paid $4,229 for a CPAP, might recognize that other payers are paying far less and anticipate pressure to justify such rates. Conversely, a payer like HealthPartners might use this data to renegotiate and avoid paying 8x more than Medicare for equipment. Meanwhile, Aetna’s low rates could be a selling point for its efficiency – or a pain point if DME suppliers feel underpaid and drop out of its network, affecting patient access. UnitedHealthcare and Medica, being around the median, might feel their rates are competitive, but still might explore if further savings are possible by emulating Medicare’s bid-informed rates.

Leveraging Price Transparency Data: A Playbook for Stakeholders

The newfound transparency in pricing isn’t just trivia; it can inform strategy and decision-making across the healthcare industry. Here’s how different stakeholders can leverage this data:

• Health Systems and Hospitals: Providers can now benchmark what payers are reimbursing competitors for DME and other services. If a health system in Minnesota sees that its CPAP reimbursement from Payer X is far below what the same payer pays another provider, that’s actionable intelligence for negotiations. Conversely, if a hospital is getting unusually high rates (like in our example), they should be prepared for payers to push back. Hospitals, especially in rural areas, can use transparency data to identify if they are being underpaid relative to urban peers and bolster their case for rate increases. In short, it gives providers much-needed market context to “assess [their] negotiated rates against market standards and pinpoint under- or over-reimbursement”. As the National Rural Health Association notes, “this payer-level data offers a powerful opportunity to benchmark rates across regions…and approach negotiations with clearer context and greater confidence.” (Source: https://www.ruralhealth.us/blogs/2025/06/helping-rural-hospitals-strengthen-payer-negotiations#:~:text=1,negotiations)
• Payers and Health Plans: Insurers can use transparency data to compare their payment levels to the competition. If an insurer finds its CPAP rates are, say, 150% higher than the market average, it could renegotiate DME contracts or steer volume to lower-cost providers. Plans can also identify variation within their network – for example, why are we paying Provider A $4,000 and Provider B $500 for the same item? Perhaps it’s time to tighten contract language to avoid such discrepancies. Additionally, payers can analyze whether their rates align with value: Are higher payments resulting in better service or outcomes, or just higher costs? Payers might leverage data to design narrow networks or preferred providers for DME based on cost-effectiveness. All of this can ultimately help contain premiums. As one analysis suggested, payers armed with transparency data can “ensure competitive positioning by aligning rates with broader trends” and strengthen their contracting strategy with data-backed targets.
  
  
• DME Suppliers and Medical Equipment Companies: Traditionally, DME suppliers had limited visibility into what various payers paid (beyond their own contracts). Now, a local DME company can find out what its competitors are getting reimbursed. This can inform their negotiations with payers – if they see a rival supplier is getting $600 from a certain insurer while they only get $400, they might bring that up in contract discussions. On the flip side, if they discover their rates are comparatively generous, they’ll know to defend them by highlighting their quality or other value. Suppliers can also identify which payers offer better reimbursement and possibly focus on strengthening those relationships or marketing to patients with those insurances. In a sense, price transparency data can help DME providers strategically plan which networks to join or avoid and how to set pricing structures for cash-pay patients (since they now know the insurer-negotiated “market” price range).
  
  
• Consultants, Analysts, and Employers: Healthcare consultants and analysts are already diving into transparency datasets to find inefficiencies and savings. Employers who sponsor health plans can ask pointed questions of their third-party administrators or insurers – e.g., “Why is our plan paying $780 for CPAPs when the market median is $535? Can we carve out a better deal?” Benefits consultants might use this data to design plans that take advantage of lower-cost providers (for instance, creating a designated DME vendor benefit that covers CPAP at 100% if obtained from a specific low-cost supplier, steering employees away from high-cost outlets). Analysts and researchers can also spot broader trends, such as regional price differences or the impact of hospital consolidation on DME prices. All these insights feed into a more data-driven approach to managing healthcare costs. Price transparency data is rapidly becoming a “decision-making framework” rather than just a spreadsheet enabling evidence-based policy and business choices.
  ‍
  

Explore Gigasheet's Price Transparency Solutions: Book A Demo

‍

Turning Raw Data into Action

The case of CPAP pricing variability in Minnesota encapsulates a larger truth in healthcare: prices are not inherent to the product, but are negotiated in a complex environment. A CPAP machine that one insurer pays $330 for and another pays $780 for is the exact same device performing the same function for patients with the same condition. Such divergence raises the question – how can the system rationalize these differences and reduce waste without compromising care? Increased transparency is a pivotal first step.

Thanks to the Transparency in Coverage rule, we now have the ability to shine light on previously hidden negotiations. Stakeholders armed with this data can identify where they stand – whether they’re overpaying, undercharging, or simply out of alignment with peers. The data by itself doesn’t change anything, but it empowers change. A health system can approach a payer with hard numbers to argue for a fairer rate (or vice versa), and an employer can demand that their insurer get them a better deal reflective of market norms. Over time, as this information diffuses, we could see a narrowing of the extreme gaps in prices, though that will also depend on market forces and the relative negotiating leverage of parties.

For DME like CPAPs, specifically, the convergence toward Medicare’s post-competitive-bidding pricing might accelerate if private payers feel pressure to justify higher reimbursements. Alternatively, some payers might stick to higher rates if they believe it ensures better service or access (for example, a plan might pay more to a provider that offers superior patient education and follow-up for CPAP users, improving adherence and health outcomes). Stakeholders must balance cost and quality considerations in using this data; lowest price isn’t always best for patient care, but outlier high prices likely indicate inefficiency.

In closing, the CPAP example illustrates how granular pricing data can inform strategic decisions. Of course DME is just one slice of healthcare. Similar analyses are now possible for everything from an MRI scan to a knee replacement. For those willing to invest in parsing the data, the reward is unprecedented insight. Transparency is turning healthcare pricing from a black box into an open book. The organizations that read that book and act on its lessons will be better positioned to deliver value in the modern healthcare marketplace. In an industry often characterized by opacity and fragmentation, this kind of data-driven clarity is a breath of fresh air, or perhaps more fittingly, a full breath of air through a CPAP, helping to wake us up to where we can do better.

‍