The Federal Trade Commission warned 24 major healthcare companies to review their pricing practices, saying hospitals that conceal costs or mislead patients could face federal lawsuits. Andrew Ferguson delivered the warning Monday morning during a healthcare transparency forum, calling for complete, accurate prices before patients agree to scheduled procedures.

Ferguson said hospitals cannot hide costs to prevent patients from comparing competing facilities. Disclosures must include charges such as physician and facility fees, rather than presenting a partial price that patients could reasonably mistake for the total. The letters encourage internal compliance reviews and were not based on findings that each recipient had violated federal law.

Separate enforcement investigations into some hospitals are already underway, with particular attention to rural Americans, seniors and veterans. Compliance remains uneven, as a September report from Patient Rights Advocate found that just 18% of hospitals posting fees online listed dollars-and-cents prices for at least half their services. Large, difficult-to-navigate files can also leave patients struggling to find usable information.

An advertised price holds little weight if charges appear only after a patient commits to treatment. Some hospitals leave out physician or facility fees in order to appear cheaper than another, distorting the comparison patients are supposed to make before choosing where to receive care. The FTC’s warning addresses this practice of what’s being advertised and whether a price is trustworthy.

Federal enforcement could make misleading disclosures more costly for healthcare companies. This is notable for scheduled care, especially when patients have time to compare options but may struggle to identify every charge. While better information can certainly enhance competition by forcing hospitals to compete more on prices that patients can actually understand, transparency alone will not make treatment more affordable or create alternatives in communities with few providers.

The immediate value is that patients will have a clearer basis for decisions they must often make under stress.

Employers paying for healthcare need reliable prices to compare providers and assess what they spend on employees’ care, as incomplete figures make it harder to identify an expensive facility or negotiate a better deal. More usable disclosures could strengthen those negotiations, although any resulting savings would not automatically reduce your premiums.

Location is a big factor, too. In cities with several hospitals, more dependable prices could help patients distinguish facilities offering the same scheduled service. In a rural community with few alternatives, knowing the price may offer less bargaining power, especially if traveling elsewhere means paying for lodging or missing more work.

The 24 companies received warnings, not findings of wrongdoing, so their inclusion should not be read as proof that they misled patients. However, the investigations already underway are far more consequential, as they could show which pricing practices the FTC will challenge and what hospitals must change to avoid federal court. Those cases could influence billing practices well beyond the providers involved, giving other hospitals a concrete reason to correct similar problems before investigators reach them.