Hospital price transparency files
Federal rules require every US hospital to publish its actual prices, including a cash-pay rate, in a machine-readable file and a consumer display.
Best for
Comparing what a specific hospital charges for a planned scan or procedure before you schedule it.
Why Kave includes this
This is a right, not a program, and almost nobody uses it. For a planned MRI or colonoscopy the published cash-pay rate is often far below the billed charge and is frequently negotiable downward from there. Kave explains how to find and read the file rather than pointing at a commercial price-comparison site.
- Expected cost
- The information is free. Prices themselves vary enormously between hospitals in the same city.
- Insurance requirement
- None. Files must include a discounted cash price alongside negotiated plan rates.
- Who qualifies
- Applies to every hospital operating in the United States.
- Where it is available
- Nationwide (United States)
- How you use it
- Online or by phone
- Languages
- English
Limitations Kave wants you to know about
- Compliance quality varies; some files are hard to read or incomplete.
- The published price covers the facility fee and typically not the clinician's separate bill.
- Prices are for planned care and are of little use in an emergency.
Verification
Compiled by Kave on July 1, 2026 and link-checked. Not yet independently verified. Kave assembled this from the organisation’s own published material and confirmed the links resolve. No reviewer has confirmed the eligibility details against the source, so check them on the official site before you rely on them.
- Compiled
- July 1, 2026 (28 days ago)
- Next scheduled review
- September 29, 2026
- Reviewed by
- Not yet reviewed
Sources used
- CMS — Hospital Price Transparency — read July 1, 2026
Kave quality score
79/100
Kave lists resources scoring 80 or above that also clear all four mandatory gates.
- Patient impact18.5/25
- Affordability or financial value16.4/20
- Transparency14.4/15
- Accessibility9.3/15
- Ease of use5.2/10
- Geographic reach5/5
- Institutional credibility5/5
- Privacy and data practices4.8/5
Geographic reach is deliberately worth only five points, so a strong local resource is not pushed out by a weak national one. Read the methodology.